KUNDA KUMAR KUMAI

This is an appeal u/s 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, preferred against the order passed by the Ld. DCDRC, Siliguri, on 21/09/2023 in CC/103/2023. Initially, the appeal was preferred before the Hon’ble WBSCDRC, Kolkata and was numbered as A/404/2023, which was subsequently transferred to this Commission, vide Order no.02 dated 21/12/2023. Thereafter, the appeal was re-numbered as RBR/A/5/2024.

The Appellant’s case in brief, is that the Appellant, being the wife of the deceased, had filed a consumer case before the Ld. DCDRC, Siliguri, claiming the amount of Rs.60,00,000/- (Rupees sixty lakhs) only, inter alia, after the death of the deceased/ husband, who had undertaken a Policy of the Respondent/LICI. On receipt of the said case, the Ld. DCDRC, Siliguri, at the time of admission hearing, vide the impugned order, directed the return of the plaint, to the Appellant/Complainant, on the ground, that the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Commission had been exceeded, for filing the same before the Commission having pecuniary jurisdiction, to entertain the same.

Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the Appellant/Complainant preferred an appeal, on the ground that the Ld. DCDRC, Siliguri had erred in law and facts, while passing the impugned order, before the Hon’ble WBSCDRC, Kolkata, who also citing lack of territorial jurisdiction, transferred the appeal to this Commission, for necessary disposal. Hence, this appeal.

                                                                                Decisions with Reasons

The Ld. Advocate for the Appellant, at the time of final hearing, had submitted that the impugned order, passed by the Ld. DCDRC, Siliguri, had been erroneous on the ground that the impugned order had been passed in contravention of the provisions of Section 34(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and had relied on the judgements passed by the Hon’ble NCDRC on 17/11/2023 in F.A.879/2021, in M/s. Nirmal Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. She had further relied in the judgement passed by the Hon’ble NCDRC on 16/01/2023 in F.A.34/2022, in Himangsu Dewan & Ors.Vs. Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. She has also relied in the judgements passed by the Hon’ble WBSCDRC, Kolkata on 07/06/2023 in F.A.158/2023 in Smt. Annapurna Basak Vs. M/s. Om Builders & Ors., on 30/06/2023 in Revision Petition no.81/2023 in Dr. Avijatri Dutta & Anr. Vs. Gaurav Kumar & Anr. and on 04/05/2023 in F.A.75/2022 in Dipanwita Paul Vs. Anik Industries.

Even though the Ld. Advocate for the Respondents appeared, but in spite of getting opportunities, failed to file the WNA and the appeal was taken up for hearing. At this stage, he filed an internet copy of the Commentary on Consumer Protection Act, submitting that the payment in instalments, would also qualify a person to be a consumer.

In view of the passing of the impugned order, on the lack of pecuniary jurisdiction of the Ld. DCDRC, Siliguri, under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the short question that needs to be decided is, whether the observations passed in the impugned order can be sustained or not. In this regard, the provisions governing the pecuniary jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, needs to be compared. Section 11(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, categorically lays down that the value of the goods or services and the compensation, should qualify the pecuniary jurisdiction under that Act, whereas Section 34(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, clearly limits the pecuniary jurisdiction to the value of goods or services, paid as consideration. Therefore, the component of the amount of compensation could not be considered, while evaluating the pecuniary jurisdiction, under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. In other words, it means that the amount paid as consideration, would be the only criteria for evaluating the pecuniary jurisdiction, under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as the case was filed in 2023, strengthened by the observations, percolating from the above cited judgements, in this regard. As regards the point raised by the Ld. Advocate for the respondent, is concerned, the dispute is regarding the pecuniary jurisdiction being satisfied or not and there being nothing in the Act, that stipulates that future instalments would also satisfy for pecuniary jurisdiction, as the consideration has to be paid, to satisfy the pecuniary jurisdiction. In the instant case, the amount paid is only Rs.14082/- (Fourteen thousand eighty-two) only, which is way below the revised pecuniary jurisdiction of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees fifty lakhs) only, before the DCDRCs, vide Notification dated 21/12/2021, passed by the Central Government. Under the circumstance, the impugned order, cannot be sustained, following which the instant appeal succeeds.

It is therefore,

                                                                        ORDERED

That the instant appeal be and the same is allowed on contest, but without cost.

The impugned order is hereby set aside. The Ld. DCDRC, Siliguri is directed to take up the matter from the stage of admission hearing. However, by way of caution, any observation made in the body of the judgement, on facts should not influence the Ld. DCDRC, Siliguri, while disposing the case on merits.

Copy of the judgement be sent to the parties, free of cost.

Copy of the judgement be sent to the Ld. DCDRC, Siliguri, for necessary compliance.