ORDER
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (President)
1. Request on behalf of the respondents for adjournment is declined. This matter was adjourned from 17.5.2002 to 9.9.2002. No reason has been given as to what personal difficulty the Counsel experienced and why no alternative arrangement has been made. As a matter of fact, we find on one date as many as three Advocates appearing for the respondents.
2. It is the complainant who is petitioner before us. His complaint for alleged deficiency in service on the part of the Tata Donnelly Ltd. (formely known as Tata Press Ltd.) was dismissed by the District Forum on the grounds, (i) complaint barred by limitation and (ii) it was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum.
3. Aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, complainant filed appeal before the State Commission which though held in favour of the complainant on the question of limitation but went along with the line of reasoning of District Forum that complaint was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum.
4. Complainant said he was a retired Director of the Public Sector Undertaking of the Government of India and had started profession of Placement & Management Consultancy Service in the name of AVA Consultants & Advertisers. He impleaded three opposite parties namely; (i) Mandeep Singh, DGM Operation; (ii) Tata Donnelly Ltd., Hoshang Billimoria, Managing Director; and (iii) Tata Donnelly Ltd. We find both Mandeep Singh, DGM Operation, Tata Donnelly Ltd. and Mr. Hoshang Billimoria, Managing Director, Tata Donnelly Ltd. are neither necessary nor proper parties in the complaint. The only concerned opposite party is Tata Donnelly Ltd. (formerly Tata Press Ltd.) against whom alleged deficiency in service was mentioned. Hereinafter opposite party-respondent will mean Tata Donnelly Ltd. (for short the ‘Press’).
5. Complainant placed an order for advertisement in the yellow pages, Delhi Directory, 1996 of the Press and paid Rs. 3,025/- on 30.7.1995 towards cost of advertisement. The advertisement was to appear as under :
“AVA CONSUTANTS & ADVERTISERS
Placement HRD, Personality Mgmt.
Consult 1 R Laws Dir-Vijai Shanker C-17-B, Gangotri End. Alaknanda, ND-19.... 6464716" 6. When the directory of 1996 was published advertisement of the complainant appeared at Page 185 showing the petitioner as the director. 7. On the same page, however, another advertisement appeared in the name of Calibre Consults, showing the complainant as director, as under : "CALIBRE CONSUTANTS Placement, HRD, Personality Mgmt. Consult 1 R Laws Dir Viojai Shanker F-58, Kalkaji, New Delhi 110019.... 6422311 "
8. This second advertisement was not placed by the complainant. Its case has been that public had been misled by this advertisement causing him great deal of harassment and agony. He said this was the advertisement of rival body and giving his name as director a great deal of harm had been caused to him. As it would appear from the record there is no director in the name of the petitioner in Calibre Consutlants which is the second advertisement. Complainant said this is all due to mischief committed by the Press. It is not necessary for us to refer to other details given in the complaint except to note that the complainant claimed following reliefs :
“That the complainant prays for reliefs as follows :
(a) That a decree be given to suitably and equitably compensate the aggrieved complainant, harassed to suffer sustantial business loss of about Rs. five lakhs, in 1996 and subsequent years.
(b) That the cost incurred in connection with the processing of the grievance, and the case including approaching the CDR Forum II, New Delhi.
(c) That free publication of the ad be awarded in the subsequent issues of the Tata Press Yellow Pages Delhi Directory for three consecutive years in lieu of the loss of the ad suffered and effected during the intervening three years since 1996 till date.
(d) That the notification of the correction of the lapse as per the rules and culture in the event of faulty advertisement be made in the subsequent issue of Tata Press Yellow Delhi Directory on the page where the corrected ad would be incorporated.
(e) That any further equitable relief, direction as considered just and proper by the District Forum in the interest of justice and fair play and under the circumstances including relive to relive the social responsibility of the business be awarded against to be adequately deterrent and direct the opposite party to avoid repeat of such malpractices and studied silence with callous attitude in handling and rectifying such glaring business default.”
9. District Forum held that though the claim made is for Rs. 5.00 lakhs but since the petitioner also sought for loss of business for subsequent years 1996 and other reliefs it would go beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of District Forum which is pegged at Rs. 5.00 lakhs. As observed earlier District Forum was of the view that cause of action arose in January, 1996 and this complaint had been filed on 23.2.1998 was barred by limitation. State Commission did not agree with the District Forum that the complaint was barred by limitation.
10. On the question of pecuniary jurisdiction we are of the view that both the District Forum and State Commission fell into serious error leading to miscarriage of justice. Complainant did not quantify the amount claimed by him over and above Rs. 5.00 lakhs. His plea that he may be compensated for the loss of business for subsequent years could at best be treated as superfluous, redundant or in any case opportunity should have been granted to the complainant to specify the amount claimed under this head. It appears to us DistrictForum was quick to get rid of the complaint. This is not the way the consumer complaint to be dealt with. Sometimes rush of disposal of cases leads to injustice which has occurred in the present case. Unfortunately, State Commission dismissed the appeal in limine. A Consumer Forum must avoid technicalities. If the State Commission was of the view that District Forum had no pecuniary jurisdiction then in the interest of justice it certainly had and should have taken steps to redress the grievance of the complainant and could itself call for the record of the complaint and treated the same as it was filed before it.
11. We could certainly on our own had quantified the damage suffered by the complainant on account of alleged harassment and mental tension undergone by him in view of his complaint regarding wrong advertisement, but here complainant is claiming loss of profit etc. This can be considered on the basis of evidence that may be brought on record and also as to the maintainability of such a claim.
12. Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed. We set aside the orders of the District Forum and State Commission and remand the matter to the State Commission to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law.