ORAL

 STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                              UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW

                                 APPEAL NO.            428 OF 2022

(Against the Order dated 24-02-2022 in Misc. Case                             No.03/2022 of the District Consumer Commission, Firozabad)

Shri Sita Ram Glass Works

Partnership Fir, situated near

John’s School, Agra Road

Village Dholpura, Firozabad

Through its partner Pinkesh Kumar Bansal

                                                                                         ...Appellant

                                                     Vs.

S.B.I. General Insurance Co. Ltd.

7-8-9, 2^nd Floor, Kaveri Centre

Block No. 57, Sanjay Place

Agra-282002

Through Branch Manager

                                                                                           ...Respondent

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR, PRESIDENT

HON’BLE MR. VIKAS SAXENA, MEMBER

HON’BLE MRS. SUDHA UPADHYAY, MEMBER

For the Appellant        :  Sri Sushil Kumar Sharma, Advocate.

For the Respondent     :                 

Dated :  22-03-2023

                                            JUDGMENT

             HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR, PRESIDENT

               This appeal has been filed under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the impugned order dated 24-02-2022 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Firozabad in Misc. Case No. 03/2022; M/s Sitaram Glass Work Versus S.B.I. General Insurance Company Limited whereby the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Firozabad has passed order to return the complaint to the complainant for presenting the same before the competent Court holding that the complaint is beyond pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Firozabad.

               Perusal of the Complaint Case No. 03/2022; M/s Sitaram Glass Work Versus S.B.I. General Insurance Company Limited shows that the complainant has claimed the relief of Rs.3,00,00,000/- (Three Crore) in

:2:

respect of sum assured of MWM Genset TCG 2020 with accessories in the policy and consequential reliefs thereby total claim comes to Rs.3,10,50,000/- alongwith 18% per annum interest.

               We have heard Sri Sushil Kumar Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellant.

               Learned Counsel for the appellant proposes this Commission to dispose of this appeal at the admission stage itself.

               Learned Counsel for the appellant has placed before us a copy of the judgment of this Commission in the case of Appeal No. A/711/2022 Amit Goyal and another V/s ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company decided on 11-08-2022 wherein this Commission has dealt with and relied upon the decision of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in the case of Complaint No. 833/2020 M/s Pyari Devi Chabiraj Steels Pvt. Ltd. V/s National Insurance Company Limited and 3 others decided on 28-08-2020.

               We have gone through the judgment and perused the documents available on record alongwith the provision of Section 34 read with Section 2(5) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

               As per the provision of Section 34 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 the District Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration does not exceed one crore rupees, now Rupees Fifty lacs.

               As per the averments made in complaint, there is a coverage of sum assured Rs.5,50,00,000/- in the policy (As mentioned in the policy schedule) and Rs.2,15,940/- was charged as total premium of the policy. So it is crystal clear that since the value of the services paid as consideration does not exceed Rs.50,00,000/-, therefore, it does come within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Consumer Commission, Firozabad as provided in Section-34 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Therefore, the order passed by the learned District Consumer Commission, Firozabad is not in conformity with the provision of Section-34 regarding the pecuniary jurisdiction. The District Consumer Commission, Firozabad had to look into the substance of Section-34 which creates the pecuniary jurisdiction according to the value of goods or services paid as consideration and not according to the relief claimed,

:3:

hence the order passed by District Consumer Commission, Firozabad deserves to be set aside.

                                                ORDER            

               The appeal is allowed. The order passed by learned District Consumer Commission, Firozabad in Misc. Case No. 03/2022 is hereby set aside. The District Consumer Commission, Firozabad is advised to proceed in Complaint Case (Misc.) No. 03/2022 according to the provision of law and dispose of the same accordingly.

Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules.

The Stenographer is requested to upload this order on the website of this Commission at the earliest.

                                                           (JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR)

                                                             PRESIDENT

                                                          ( VIKAS SAXENA )

                                                                  MEMBER

                                                      ( SUDHA UPADHYAY )  

                                                                   MEMBER                                      

Pnt.