13.07.2022
ORDER ON ADMISSION
By Sri Ravishankar, Judicial Member
The appellant preferred this Appeal No.1246/2022 against the order of dismissal by the District Commission on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction and submits that the complainant had filed a complaint against the Opposite Party alleging deficiency in service in not paying the assured amount by virtue of the policy. The policy bearing No.0062462520 for an assured sum of Rs.1,10,000/- and another life insurance policy by name Smart Suraksha Plan bearing No.0089204820 for an assured sum of Rs.50,00,000/- issued by the Opposite Party and the premium was paid accordingly. The claim was made in the above policies by filing a CC.No.104/2022 before the 4th Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and claimed for compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- along with Rs.1,65,00,000/-, but, the District Commission after registering the complaint heard on admission and dismissed the complaint as there is no pecuniary jurisdiction by considering the value of the claim made by the complainant whereas as per the new Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the pecuniary jurisdiction has to be counted as per the amount paid towards the policy purchased. The District Commission failed to appreciate the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and dismissed the complaint, hence, prayed to set aside the Order passed by the District Commission and permit them to proceed with the complaint before the District Commission.
2. Heard advocate for appellant on admission.
3. On going through the order sheet dt.09.05.2022, the District Commission has dismissed the complaint for want of pecuniary jurisdiction by quoting the provisions of the old Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and based on the decision reported by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in a Case 2022(1) CPR 363 (NC) between Apoorva Bansal v/s M/s Vatika Ltd., it reads as under;
It is clear that for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction, the value of services hired or availed plus compensation shall be the value for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction. Admittedly, the subject apartment was allotted to the complainant in consideration of Rs.1,50,50,925/- to be paid as per the payment schedule. Thus, it is clear that value of the services promised by the Opposite Party was more than Rs.1.00 crore. Therefore, in our considered view, this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
PURPOSE OF PECUNIARY JURISDICTION
Purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction, the value of services hired or availed plus compensation shall be the value for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction.
The said conclusion is not justifiable as because the old Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was repealed and new Consumer Protection Act, 2019 came into effect from 20.07.2020 and Sec.34(1) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 reads as follows;
Sec.34 - Jurisdiction of District Commission – (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration does not exceed fifty lakhs rupees ( as per amendment).
Here we noticed that the complainant has claimed for compensation to the tune of Rs.1,65,00,000/- along with Rs.5,00,000/- compensation. The District Commission made an error in noticing the claim amount towards the compensation and neglected the amount paid towards the policy. Infact the District Commission ought to consider the amount of premium paid towards the purchase of the policies for the purpose of calculating the pecuniary jurisdiction irrespective of amount claimed in the prayer column. As such the Order passed by the District Commission is hereby set aside. Hence, the following;
ORDER
The appeal is allowed.
The Order dt.09.05.2022 passed in CC.No.104/2022 is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to District Commission direct the District Commission to restore the complaint in its original number by providing an opportunity to both the parties to adjudicate the case on merits and to dispose-of the case expeditiously.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sunita .C. Bagewadi) (Ravishankar)
Member Judicial Member
