ORDER
K.S. Gupta, J. (Presiding Member)
1. Complaint filed by the appellants claiming compensation of Rs. 50 lakh was dismissed by Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore by the order dated 24.6.2005 observing as under:
In the complaint no foundation has been made so as to claim compensation of Rs. 50,00,000. Further, even if the complaint is allowed, in our view, the complainant is not entitled for compensation beyond Rs. 20,00,000. If that were to be the case, the claim of Rs. 50,00,000 is imaginary one. Therefore, we pass the following-
ORDER
Complaint is dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the complainant to file a complaint before the District Forum, if he so advised restricting his claim to Rs. 20,00,000.
2. H.M. Pai was the husband of appellant No. 1/complainant No. 1 and father of appellant No. 2/complainant No. 2 and was managing director of Rajath Leasing and Finance Ltd. earning an annual income of about Rs. 6,00,000. On 9.6.2004 Mr. Pai booked tickets for himself and the appellants for journey by helicopter from Katra to Sanjichat and back by paying an amount of Rs. 12,000. After having ]darshan of holy Vaishno Devi the family returned to the helicopter service station within a short time Family wanted to visit Kaalbhairav, which is nearby but the respondent/opposite party informed that due to cloudy atmosphere helicopter service for the day may be cancelled and it was advised to return to Katra station at the earliest. Around 1.30 p.m. boarding passes were handed over to appellant No. 1 by the respondent. There was some dispute in carrying Mr. Pai and his two family members i.e., appellants in the same flight to Katra but somehow they managed to occupy the seats in the helicopter. Mr. Pai had a heart attack as a result whereof he died. Heart attack was alleged tohavebeen triggered due to sequence of events as noticed in detail in para Nos. 4,5 and 6 of the complaint. Thus, alleging deficiency in service, complaint was filed claiming amount of Rs. 50 lakh by way of compensation against the respondent.
3. Having heard Mr. S. Bhowmic for appellants and Mr. Ravinder Tyagi for respondent and also having considered what is stated in said paras of the complaint, we are unable to agree with the State Commission that no foundation has been laid for claiming compensation in the complaint. Further, considering the ratio in CCI Chambers Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. v. Development Credit Bank Ltd. , we are of the view that at the stage of admission of complaint, finding could not have been returned by the State Commission that appellants are not entitled for compensation beyond Rs. 20 lakh as the amount of compensation to be awarded has to be determined only after the written version is filed by the respondent and evidence adduced by both the parties. Since Mr. Pai, deceased is alleged to be having annual income of Rs. 6 lakh the amount claimed cannot be said to be imaginary as held by the State Commission. Order under appeal, therefore, cannot be legally sustained and case deserves to be remitted to the State Commission for complaint being decided on merits.
4. Consequently, while allowing appeal the order dated 24.6.2005 is set aside and case remanded to the State Commission for complaint being decided afresh on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of adducing evidence to the parties.
5. Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 30.5.2006 for direction.