The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum and the definition of a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act.

ORDER :

1. Learned Counsel for the appellant is present. None appears on behalf of the respondents on call.

2. On the request of the learned Counsel for the appellant, this appeal is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission.

3. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 26.3.2018 passed by the learned District Forum, Nabarangpur in CC No. 117 of 2017. By that order the present appellant as been directed to pay Rs. 25,000 to respondent No. 1 towards compensation which includes cost of litigation within 30 days from the date of receipt of the said order failing which the awarded amount shall carry Rs. 50 per day till realisation of the awarded amount.

4. Appellant was opposite party No. 2. Respondent No. 1 was the complainant before the learned District Forum whereas respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were opposite parties 1 and 3 respectively in the said complaint. Parties are described hereafter as per their status in the complaint.

5. Complainant/respondent No. 1 of village Majhiguda in the district of Nabarangpur filed a complaint before the Nabarangpur District Forum on the allegation that she was pregnant and during her stay at Onkadil at her relative’s house she went to Lamtaput Hospital on 3.11.2017 owing to labour pain and approached opposite party No. 1 who advised to approach the concerned Nurse and accordingly, she approached opposite party No. 3. On approach to opposite party No. 3, she stated that since her duty time was over another Nurse, namely, opposite party No. 2 was incharge of delivery. So opposite party No. 2 came to undertook delivery work and during delivery opposite party No. 2 demanded Rs. 500 as her service charge. The attendant of the complainant offered Rs. 200 as service charge, but opposite party No. 2 demanded Rs. 500. when the complainant failed to pay such demanded amount opposite party No. 2 did not stitch the affected part and did her work carelessly. Due to such carelessness of opposite party No. 2 complainant felt severe pain and bleeding. On request, she neither gave any medicine nor advised her to purchase any medicine to overcome the suffering in absence of opposite party No. 1 medical ambulance was provided to shift her to her village. Complainant on her own accord arranged a vehicle and retuned to her village in a painful situation. Thereafter, complainant went to a Gynecologist at Nabarangpur who prescribed some medicines and thereafter complainant got some relief. Thus, there was deficiency in service and accordingly, she claimed compensation of Rs. 60,000.

6. Opposite parties did not appear before the learned District Forum nor filed any written version.

7. The learned District Forum taking into consideration the materials available on record, awarded the aforesaid amount as compensation.

8. Learned Counsel for the appellant has challenged the same on the ground that the District Forum Nabarangpur has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as per Section 11(2) of the C.P. Act. On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the opposite parties against whom the complaint was filed are working in CHC, Lamtaput which is in Koraput District and as such it comes under the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum, Koraput at Jeypore. So none of the opposite parties resides or works for gain under the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum, Nabarangpur. Besides that no cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum, Nabarangpur. In such circumstances, entertaining the complaint by the District Forum, Nabarangpur appears to be illegal. Besides that nothing reveals from the impugned order that the complainants is a ‘consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act. As per Section 2(1)(d)(ii) if a person hires or avails any service for consideration which has been paid then the person becomes a consumer. The impugned order does not reveal that the complainant has paid any amount towards service rendered by the appellant. It appear