Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 6139
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Milind.S.Sonawane, CJ, Dr.Nisha.A.Chavhan, J, Nagesh.C.Kumbre, J
Dr.Ganga Kailas Dargad – Appellant
Versus
Mr.Vikas Subhash Lidhoriya – Respondent
REVISION PETITION NO. : 02 OF 2025 | COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 19 OF 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: A.M.Mamidwar
For the Respondents: M.N.Batane
Court fees requirement depends on consideration paid; if under Rs.5 lakhs, no fees required, reinforcing provisions of Consumer Protection Act.
Headnote:This judgment concerns the interpretation of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 regarding court fees in consumer complaints. The respondents, alleging medical negligence, claimed that their complaint was not undervalued as they paid Rs.300/-, which does not require court fees under S.34(1) of the CP Act. The court found that the District Commission should decide the relevant issue during final hearing, reinforcing the non-applicability of provisions under S.9A of the Code of Civil Procedure in this context. The revision petition was partly allowed with the direction that the District Commission address the concern during final hearings.
Dr.Nisha.A.Chavhan, Hon’ble Member, Nagesh.C.Kumbre, Hon’ble Member J U D G M E N T (Delivered on 10/07/2025)
Per Milind S.Sonawane, Hon’ble Presiding Member.
The respondents are the legal heirs of deceased Neha and they have filed Consumer Complaint No.19/2023 before the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission , Jalna for the alleged medical negligence. In that pending case the revision petitioner filed an application before the District Commission that, the respondents(who are the original complainants) have claimed compensation of Rs.50 lakhs. However, they have not paid requisite court fees and therefore the complaint filed by them is under valued and is not maintainable. They prayed the District Commission that, it may kindly be dismissed.
2. The Ld. District Commission called the say of the respondents on that application. It was contended by the respondents that, on 12/04/2021 at about 1.30 p.m. the deceased Neha was taken to revision petitioners for medical treatment. They have paid just Rs.300/- as a fees to the petitioners. The provisions of the Consumer Protection Act , 2019 (the ‘C.P.Act’ for short) lays down that, the valuation of the complaint shall be ascertained on the basis of value of the goods or services paid as consideration. There is no court fees required to be paid if that consideration is below Rs.5 lakhs. In the present matter they have just paid Rs.300/- as a consideration and therefore no court fees has been paid as legally not required to pay.
3. It is the grievance of the revision petitioners that, the Ld. District Commission without deciding that application posted the matter for final hearing by way of order dated 29/04/2025. Being aggrieved by the above order the revision petitioners are before us in this matter.
4. The Ld. Adv.A.M.Mamidwar for the revision petitioners submitted that, the requisite court fees on the amount of compensation claimed i.e. Rs.50 lakhs has not been paid and therefore consumer complaint filed by the respondents is not maintainable. This issue raised before District Commission ought to have been decided by it before posting the matter for final hearing.
5. On the other hand, Adv.Batane for the respondents submitted that, the pecuniary value of complaint is just Rs.300/- and for the paid consideration amount up to Rs.5 lakhs no court fees is required. There was no reason for the revision petitioners to file the application for the dismissal of complaint before the District Commission and also this revision petition.
6. The provisions of S.34 (1) of the C.P.Act provides that , the pecuniary value of complaint is to be ascertained on the basis of the ‘value of the goods or services paid as consideration’. In the present matter the complainant claimed to have paid just Rs.300/- as consideration. The revision petitioners sought to decide the issue raised by them as preliminary issue. However, it is now settled position of the law that, provisions of S.9A of the Code of Civil Procedure pertaining to the framing of preliminary issue is not applicable to the proceedings before the Consumer Commissions. It is only when the issue so raised goes to the route of the matter, then only it can be preliminary decided keeping the other issues pending for adjudication. In the present matter the District Commission has not passed any order on that application of the revision petitioners and posted the matter for final hearing. The issue raised by the revision petitioners does not appears to us go to the route of the matter and could be decided by District Commission at the time of final hearing. Therefore, it will be just to direct the District Commission to decide this issue in the final hearing. With this observation the revision petition will have to be partly allowed in above terms. In the facts and circumstances, there would no order as to cost.
Hence we pass the following order.
ORDER
1. The revision petition is partly allowed.
2. The District Commission is directed to decid
