15.03.2023

ORDER

Mr. RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Heard advocate for complainant on admission. 

On perusal of the complaint, we noticed that the complainant’s husband availed housing loan of Rs.45,00,000/- with an intention to purchase the property.  The matter in issue is for Rs.45,00,000/-. Hence, the pecuniary jurisdiction to file a complaint comes under District Commission as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 2019. 

In this regard, it is appropriate to refer a Order dt.28.08.2020 passed in Consumer Case No.833/2022 of Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the matter between M/s Pyaridevi Chabiraj Steels Pvt. Ltd., v/s National Insurance Company Ltd., & 3 others wherein it is held as under;

 “The pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Commission, State Commission or National Commission, the value of the goods or services paid as consideration alone has to be taken and not the value of the goods or services purchased/ taken.  Therefore, we are of the view that the provision of Section 58(1)(a)(i) of the Act of 2019 are very clear and does not call for any two interpretations”.

Hence, the complaint is hereby returned to the complainant along with documents to file the same before the District Commission as the District Commission has pecuniary jurisdiction. 

The fee paid by the complainant before this commission is sufficient to entertain the complaint before the District Commission. 

             Sd/-                                                               Sd/-

(Sunita .C. Bagewadi)                                     (Ravishankar)       

         Member                                                   Judicial Member