1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4786 OF 2008 (Noble Explochem Limited vs. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DECEMBER 11, 2008. Heard Shri Wachasunder, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Patel, learned AGP for the respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that his Complaint (UTP) No. 12 of 2008 has not been entertained by the respondent – Tribunal after observing that the original claim therein is of Rs.17,31,238/-. He invites attention to para 19 of the Complaint to point out that said amount is only on account of difference because of wrong application of policy by the Insurance company. He further states that the other reliefs sought are separate and distinct. He points out that interest amount of Rs.2,31,533/- has been wrongly recovered from the petitioner by Respondent No.1 – Bank and he is also claiming it back in the said matter. He further states that he has also claimed compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs jointly and severally 2 against both the respondents. He argues that he may get different amounts against these three heads but for the purposes of jurisdiction, all these three claims need to be considered together and as the total claim exceeds Rs. 20 lakhs, the matter was rightly filed before the respondent. He invites attention to provisions of Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in support. The learned AGP states that the main prayer is for refund of amount of Rs.17,31,238/- and if that prayer is not granted, the petitioner will not be entitled to any other relief. He also invites attention to provisions of Section 17 of the Act and also to judgment of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in the case of Shahbad Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. National Insurance Company Limited, reported at 1986-2005 CONSUMER 8710(NS). He states that the law has been correctly applied by the respondent and no interference in the matter is warranted. After hearing parties, I am satisfied that the scrutiny of complaint, as filed only for the purposes of determining its valuation and consequential jurisdiction, is essential. Prima facie, it appears to me that all three claims are 3 independent of each other and, therefore, form distinct heads. The learned counsel for the petitioner, during arguments has pointed out that the petitioner could not place all these facts in detail before the respondent as a junior advocate was sent only for the purposes of presentation without realising that such an objection may crop up. Shri Wachasunder, learned counsel submits that the petitioner will be satisfied if the petitioner is given one more opportunity of hearing before the respondent so as to point out the correct position. The learned AGP is objecting to such an opportunity. However, in the interest of justice and to have clear position on record, I find it proper to grant one more opportunity of hearing to the present petitioner. For that purpose, the impugned order dated 12.8.2008 is quashed and set aside. The proceedings in Complaint (UTP) No. 12 of 2008 are restored back to the file of the respondent for taking fresh decision, after hearing the counsel for the petitioner on the aspect of violation of jurisdiction. The petitioner shall not claim any adjournment when the matter is scheduled for hearing by the respondent. Shri Wachasunder, learned counsel states 4 that if the matter is fixed on 29.12.2008, the petitioner will keep his advocate present before the Tribunal. The petitioner is accordingly permitted to remain present before the Tribunal on 29.12.2008 and the Tribunal may consider on that day the arguments on the aspect of valuation and jurisdiction, if it is convenient to the Tribunal. Otherwise the petitioner shall abide by the further directions of the Tribunal. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.