District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh

CC/1017/2016

BEFORE:

          RAJAN DEWAN,  PRESIDENT

          SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

PRESENT:

Sh.R.P.Singh, Authorized Representative of Complainant.

Sh.Anirudh Gupta, Counsel for OP.

Dated : 24^th November 2017

ORDER

1.        Today the case is listed for settlement in view of the offer given by OP on the last date of hearing i.e. 23.11.2017. However, Authorized Representative of the Complainant states the Complainant is not ready to settle the matter on the offered amount of Rs.3500/-.

2.        In the present case, the Complainant has taken a loan of Rs.90,05,000/- including insurance amount of Rs.5,000/- from the OP under the Scheme of Flexisaver LAP vide Agreement No.424FSL09975541. However, without going into the merits of the case, it is important to mention that on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction in view of law laid by Hon’ble National Commission in “Ambrish Kumar Shukla vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Private Ltd.” in CC/97/2016 decided on 07.10.2016, the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum is limited to Rs.20,00,000/- only; whereas this case is out of Rs.90,05,000/-. In para No.15 of the judgment, while dealing with reference dated 11.8.2016, the Hon'ble National Commission has held as under:-

          “Issue No.(i)

          It is the value of the goods or services, as the          case may be, and not the value or cost of            removing the deficiency in the service which is           to be considered for the purpose of determining        the pecuniary jurisdiction.

          Issue No.(ii)

          Xxxxxx

          Issue No.(iii)

          xxxxxx

          Issue No. (iv)

          In a complaint instituted under Section 12(1)(c)          of the Consumer Protection Act, the pecuniary          jurisdiction is to be determined on the basis of        aggregate of the value of the goods purchased or       the services hired or availed by all the             consumers on whose behalf or for whose benefit       the complaint is instituted and the total              compensation claimed in respect of such               consumers.”

3.        From the afore extracted para, it is evident that it is the value of the goods or services, as the case may be, and not the value or cost of removing the deficiency in the service, which is to be considered for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction. The Hon’ble National Commission has further held that while determining pecuniary jurisdiction by the Consumer Fora, they are required to take into consideration the aggregate value of the goods purchased or services hired or availed by consumer plus compensation. In the instant case, as observed herein before, the present lis is arising out of Rs.90,05,000/-, which is clearly beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum, as prescribed under Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides that this Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed does not exceed Rs.20.00 lakhs.  Hence, keeping in view the provisions of Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission in Ambrish Kumar Shukla’s case (supra), this complaint is not maintainable being out of pecuniary ambit of this Forum and the same deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone.

4.        For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is dismissed, being not maintainable for want of pecuniary jurisdiction. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate authority/Commission, having the pecuniary jurisdiction, under the provisions of law for redressal of their grievance.  The complainant may take advantage of the ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. PSG Industrial Institute, (1995) 3 SCC 583, to seek exclusion of time spent before this Forum. 

5.        Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. The file be consigned