IMPORTANT POINT
Revisional jurisdiction - Only in a case where it is found that the State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested illegally or with material irregularity, the National Commission would be justified in exercising the revisional jurisdiction.

ORDER

R.K. Agrawal, President—The challenge in the Revision Petition No. 3204 of 2017 preferred by Opposite Party No. 3, viz., Anurag Sachdeva and Revision Petition Nos. 3276 and 3277 of 2017 filed by the Complainant under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short ‘the Act’), is to the Orders dated 14.07.2017 in Appeal No. 1343/2014 and Appeal No. 1488/2014 passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission) whereby the State Commission has concurred with the finding of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit-1, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as ‘District Forum’) holding deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties but reduced the compensation the compensation of Rs.14,00,000/- as awarded by the District Forum to Rs.8,00,000/-.

2. Since all the three Revision Petitions are arising out of one Complaint, they are being disposed of by this common Order.

3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Complainant’s daughter was student of Class IV B of Opposite Party No. 2 School where Opposite Party No. 1 was the Principal. Opposite Party No. 3 was carrying on repairing work inside the Opposite Party No. 2 School. Complainant’s daughter while going to toilet during recess hour on 11.07.2012, met with an accident as a block of cement slipped from height and fell over her right leg. Some personnel of Opposite Party No. 3 carried the daughter of the Complainant to the Command Hospital (EC), Kolkata, where Doctors diagnosed it a case of multiple fracture and she underwent treatment from 11.07.2012 to 18.08.2012. Thereafter Complainant’s daughter was taken to Madurai Institute of Orthopedics and Traumatology (in short ‘MIOT’) for better treatment in the native place of the Complainant on 22.08.2012 and she remained admitted there till 27.08.2012. She was again admitted there on 18.09.2012 and discharged on 24.09.2012. The Complainant had to incur an expenditure of approximately Rs.2,50,000/-. The husband of the Complainant informed the Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2 regarding treatment and requested for reimbursement of medical expenses of Rs.2,50,000/- but in vain. Vexed with the attitude of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant filed a Consumer Complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties as they have failed to restrict the entry of the students at the site while construction work was going on but due to gross negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties, her daughter had suffered various losses and could not lead an independent life throughout the life. The following reliefs were claimed before the District Forum:—

“(a) reimbursement of the medical expenses to the tune of Rs.3 lakh

(b) compensation of Rs.16,50,000/- for mental agony and harassment and

(c) litigation cost of Rs.20,000/-.”

4. As the Opposite Parties neither appeared nor filed any Written Version despite notice, the District Forum proceeded to hear the Complaint exparte. After examining material on record, the District Forum allowed the Complaint and directed the Opposite Parties to jointly and severally reimburse the medical expenses of Rs.3 lakh, compensation of Rs.14 lakh for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- within 30 days and failing which it would carry interest @10% p.a.

5. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2, Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya and Kendriya Vidyala, had filed First Appeal No. A/1488/2014 and Opposite Party No. 3/Contractor had filed First Appeal No.A/1343/2014 before the State Commission.

6. Based on the material adduced and pleadings put forwarded, the State Commission affirmed the findings recorded by the District Forum but reduced the compensation of Rs.14,00,000/- as awarded by the District Forum to Rs.8,00,000/-, by observing as under:—

“The Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 have tried to convince that no notice was served upon them but they have