A consumer complaint retains validity despite jurisdiction objections if amended properly to fit jurisdictional limits.

1. The revision petitioner Dr. Zakaria has preferred this revision against the order of District Forum , Central Mumbai date 16.12.2021. This revision petitioner is the opponents and respondents Dr. Vikram Pawar and Yashwant Pawar are the complainants in the consumer complaint No. 56/2020 before the Dist. Consumer Forum.

2. It is the contention of petitioner that the respondents have filed consumer complaint before Dist. Forum, Central Mumbai on 28.2.2020 under Consumer Protection Act 1986 . On giving appearance before District Forum , this revision petitioner has filed application on 20.6.2020 raising objection as to pecuniary jurisdiction with a prayer to return the complaint for proper presentation. The respondents i.e. original complainants have submitted application for amendment to reduce the pecuniary jurisdiction . However, District Forum has rejected his objection as to pecuniary jurisdiction by order dt.16.12.2021 and allowed the amendment application of respondents / complainants. It is the contention of revision petitioner that he has raised objection immediately on appearance which was supposed to be decided then and there. The order passed by District Commission / Forum is without jurisdiction and hence he has placed reliance upon the judgment and order of Honble Supreme Court in Chandrabhai Bhoir v. Krishna Arjun Bhoir , (2008) IX SLT 32, wherein the Honble Apex Court on pecuniary jurisdiction in para 26 observed that in any view of the matter an order passed without jurisdiction in the matter is nullity. It will be a corum nonjudice. It is non - est in the eye of law.

3. Another judgment of Honble Supreme Court in Sri. Athmanathaswami Devasthanam v. K. Gopalswami Aiyangar , 1963 (SLT SOFT) 79, wherein it is observed by Honble Apex Court that,
when the Court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit it cannot decide any question on merits. It can simply decide on the question of jurisdiction.

4. The third case relied upon is the judgment of Honble National Commission in Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Vipan Kumar Kohli , (1995) I CPJ 235 (NC), wherein the Honble National Commission has observed that, At the outset, we may state the settled law that a defect of jurisdiction , whether it is pecuniary or territorial, strikes at the very authority of the Forum to pass any order and such an order is a nullity and its invalidity could be set up whenever or wherever it is sought to be enforced . Even though the appeal and the application of condonation of delay were dismissed in limine by the State Commission , we examined the question as it relates to the inherent lack of jurisdiction of the District Forum.

5. It is submitted on behalf of revision petitioner that the District Forum ought to have acknowledged the aforesaid judgments mentioned before the District Forum while arguing the aspect of pecuniary jurisdiction. However, , the District Forum failed to consider the aforesaid aspects.

6. The learned Advocate for respondents / original complainant contended that the complainant has submitted amendment application as there was typographical mistake and they have prayed for deletion of prayer clause(b). It is further argued that the cases relied upon by the Advocate for revision petitioner are not applicable to the present case as the District Forum has not decided the application pertaining to merits of the case. Secondly, the subject matter of the dispute is not exceeding Rs. 20 lakhs and the petitioner by amendment in deleting prayer clause (b) which is about the cost of proceedings amounting to Rs. 10,000 and not in respect of the subject matter of the complaint. Hence, he has supported the order of Distr