The main legal point established is that the Consumer Protection Act empowers the State Commission to award compensation for loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of the opposite party, and such compensation should be proportionate to the financial loss.

ORDER

Prem Narain, Presiding Member. - This First Appeal has been filed by Country Club Hospitality & Holidays Ltd. & anr. against the order dated 26.5.2015 of the Rajasthan, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (in short 'the State Commission'), passed in Original Complaint No. 72/2013.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents/complainants were approached by an agent of appellants/opposite parties for taking the club membership. The complainants added in the offer holiday to Thailand and Goa also, though, the membership was only for Indian holiday resorts. The agent then allegedly forwarded their requests to the opposite party company. The complainants also paid Rs. 38,000 as membership fee. The head office, opposite parties sent approval of the membership for the complainants vide their letter dated 16.7.2012 in which there was no mention of holiday to Bangkok or Goa. After receiving the same the complainants were shocked to see that the amendment made by them in the offer, were not there. The complainants then wrote to the opposite parties stating that their signatures have been forged and the offer has been changed. When the opposite parties did not do anything, but demanded a renewal fee, the complainants filed consumer complaint No. 72 of 2013 before the State Commission claiming the deficiency on the part of the opposite parties along with compensation of Rs. 25,00,000 for mental agony and harassment. The complaint was resisted by the opposite parties on the ground of limitation as well on other counts. The State Commission after considering submissions of both the parties allowed the complaint as under:

"15. The present complaint of the complainants is allowed jointly and severally against the Opposite parties. The Country Club India Ltd. (OPs) shall execute a fresh agreement with terms and conditions as mentioned in draft agreement dated 9.6.2012 (Ex.5) and would provide the facilities accordingly. The opposite parties are directed to pay to the complainant Rs. 5,00,000 (Rupees five lacs only) as compensation against mental agony.

16. In case the Opposite Parties fail to execute the aforesaid agreement and provide facilities to the complainants accordingly, then they shall refund the membership fee of Rs. 38,000 (Rupees thirty eight thousand only) with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing of the complaint and shall also pay Rs. 10,00,000 (Rupees Ten Lacs Only) as compensation to the complainants. The compliance of the order shall be made within two months from today. In case they fail to comply with the orders, they shall further pay an interest of 9% per annum on the aforesaid compensation. The Opposite Party shall also pay Rs. 20,000 (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) as cost of proceedings for the present complaint.

17. The Registrar of the State Consumer Redressal Commission is directed to lodge an FIR against the Opposite Parties for preparing forged agreement as directed in para 14 of the judgment."

3. Hence the present appeal.

4. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. The learned Counsel for the appellants firstly, stated that the value of goods and services was only about Rs. 38,000, which was in the shape of fees paid by the complainants for membership of the club. Hence, the State Commission did not have any jurisdiction to entertain this complaint and complaint should have been filed before the District Forum. The complainants had demanded a compensation of Rs. 25,00,000 just to avail the jurisdiction of the State Commission. The State Commission should have examined this issue and should have rejected complaint to be filed before the appropriate forum. The learned Counsel cited the following judgments in support of his arguments:

(1) Sushil Gupta v. International Department (Master Vintage International), Consumer Complaint No. 236 of 2013, decided on 18.7.2014; wherein the following case note has emerged.

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 21 (