State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Kunal Exports & Infrastructure & M/S ... vs Icici Lombard General Insurance ... on 8 December, 2023
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
1) First Appeal No.699 of 2022
Date of institution : 18.08.2022
Reserved On : 09.11.2023
Date of decision : 08.12.2023
1.M/s Kunal Exports & Infrastructure, Shop No.6, Aggarsain Nagar, Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda-151001 (Punjab) through its Sole Prop. Kunal Garg, aged about 32 years S/o Sh. Gurdas Garg.
2. M/s Gurdas Agro (P) Ltd., 2301, Bhupinder Flour Mills, Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda-151001 (Punjab), through its Authorized Signatory Rupinder Singh, aged about 46 years S/o Gurbax Singh.
....Appellants/Complainants Versus ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., 1st Floor, Sharma Complex, 3039-A, G.T. Road, Bathinda-151001, through its Manager/Incharge Claims.
....Respondent/OP
2) First Appeal No.700 of 2022
Date of institution : 18.08.2022
Reserved On : 09.11.2023
Date of decision : 08.12.2023
1. M/s GG Continental Trades Pvt. Ltd., 2301, Bhupinder Flour Mills, Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda-151001 (Punjab), through its Authorized Director, Kunal Garg, aged about 32 years S/o Sh. Gurdas Garg.
2. M/s Gurdas Agro (P) Ltd., 2301, Bhupinder Flour Mills, Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda-151001 (Punjab) through its Authorized First Appeal No.699 of 2022 2 Signatory Rupinder Singh, aged about 46 years S/o Gurbax Singh.
....Appellants/Complainants Versus ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., 1st Floor, Sharma Complex, 3039-A, G.T. Road, Bathinda-151001, through its Manager/Incharge Claims.
....Respondent/OP
3) First Appeal No.701 of 2022
Date of institution : 18.08.2022
Reserved On : 09.11.2023
Date of decision : 08.12.2023
1. M/s Shree Balaji Exports, # 6, Street No.2, Aggarsain Nagar, Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda-151001 (Punjab), through its Authorized Partner Mrs. Niharika Garg, aged about 29 years W/o Sh. Kunal Garg.
2. M/s Gurdas Agro (P) Ltd., 2301, Bhupinder Flour Mills, Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda-151001 (Punjab) through its Authorized Signatory Rupinder Singh, aged about 46 years S/o Gurbax Singh.
....Appellants/Complainants Versus ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., 1st Floor, Sharma Complex, 3039-A, G.T. Road, Bathinda-151001, through its Manager/Incharge Claims.
....Respondent/OP
4) First Appeal No.702 of 2022
Date of institution : 18.08.2022
Reserved On : 09.11.2023
Date of decision : 08.12.2023
First Appeal No.699 of 2022 3
1. M/s Salasar Foods, # 2935, Namdev Marg, G.T. Road, Bathinda-
151001 (Punjab) through its Sole Prop. Rimmy Garg, aged about 27 years D/o Sh. Saran Dass.
2. M/s Gurdas Agro (P) Ltd., 2301, Bhupinder Flour Mills, Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda-151001 (Punjab) through its Authorized Signatory Rupinder Singh, aged about 46 years S/o Gurbax Singh.
....Appellants/Complainants Versus ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., 1st Floor, Sharma Complex, 3039-A, G.T. Road, Bathinda-151001, through its Manager/Incharge Claims.
....Respondent/OP
5) First Appeal No.703 of 2022
Date of institution : 18.08.2022
Reserved On : 09.11.2023
Date of decision : 08.12.2023
1. M/s Shree Balaji Exports, # 6, Street No.2, Aggarsain Nagar, Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda-151001 (Punjab), through its Authorized Partner Mrs. Niharika Garg, aged about 29 years W/o Sh. Kunal Garg.
2. M/s Gurdas Agro (P) Ltd., 2301, Bhupinder Flour Mills, Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda-151001 (Punjab) through its Authorized Signatory Rupinder Singh, aged about 46 years S/o Gurbax Singh.
....Appellants/Complainants Versus ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., 1st Floor, Sharma Complex, 3039-A, G.T. Road, Bathinda-151001, through its Manager/Incharge Claims.
....Respondent/OP
First Appeal No.699 of 2022 4
6) First Appeal No.704 of 2022
Date of institution : 18.08.2022
Reserved On : 09.11.2023
Date of decision : 08.12.2023
1. M/s Shree Balaji Exports, # 6, Street No.2, Aggarsain Nagar, Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda-151001 (Punjab), through its Authorized Partner Mrs. Niharika Garg, aged about 29 years W/o Sh. Kunal Garg.
2. M/s Gurdas Agro (P) Ltd., 2301, Bhupinder Flour Mills, Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda-151001 (Punjab) through its Authorized Signatory Rupinder Singh, aged about 46 years S/o Gurbax Singh.
....Appellants/Complainants Versus ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., 1st Floor, Sharma Complex, 3039-A, G.T. Road, Bathinda-151001, through its Manager/Incharge Claims.
....Respondent/OP
7) First Appeal No.705 of 2022
Date of institution : 18.08.2022
Reserved On : 09.11.2023
Date of decision : 08.12.2023
M/s Gurdas Agro (P) Ltd., 2301, Bhupinder Flour Mills, Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda-151001 (Punjab) through its Authorized Signatory Rupinder Singh, aged about 46 years S/o Gurbax Singh.
....Appellant/Complainant Versus First Appeal No.699 of 2022 5 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., 1st Floor, Sharma Complex, 3039-A, G.T. Road, Bathinda-151001, through its Manager/Incharge Claims.
....Respondent/OP
8) First Appeal No.706 of 2022
Date of institution : 18.08.2022
Reserved On : 09.11.2023
Date of decision : 08.12.2023
M/s Gurdas Agro (P) Ltd., 2301, Bhupinder Flour Mills, Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda-151001 (Punjab) through its Authorized Signatory Rupinder Singh, aged about 46 years S/o Gurbax Singh.
....Appellant/Complainant Versus ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., 1st Floor, Sharma Complex, 3039-A, G.T. Road, Bathinda-151001, through its Manager/Incharge Claims.
....Respondent/OP
9) First Appeal No.707 of 2022
Date of institution : 18.08.2022
Reserved On : 09.11.2023
Date of decision : 08.12.2023
1. M/s SSD Overseas, Opp. Ambuja Cement Factory, Malout Road, Bathinda-151001: Now Head Office, Opp. Shop No.1, Hotel Stay Well, Railway Road, Bathinda-151001 (Punjab), through its Authorized Partner Rimmy Garg, aged about 27 years D/o Sh. Saran Dass.
2. M/s Gurdas Agro (P) Ltd., 2301, Bhupinder Flour Mills, Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda-151001 (Punjab) through its Authorized Signatory Rupinder Singh, aged about 46 years S/o Gurbax Singh.
....Appellants/Complainants First Appeal No.699 of 2022 6 Versus ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., 1st Floor, Sharma Complex, 3039-A, G.T. Road, Bathinda-151001, through its Manager/Incharge Claims.
....Respondent/OP
10) First Appeal No.708 of 2022
Date of institution : 18.08.2022
Reserved On : 09.11.2023
Date of decision : 08.12.2023
1. M/s GK Continental Traders Pvt. Ltd., Aggarsain Nagar, Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda-151001 (Punjab), through its Authorized Director Saran Dass, aged about 51 years S/o Sh. Nohar Chand.
2. M/s Gurdas Agro (P) Ltd., 2301, Bhupinder Flour Mills, Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda-151001 (Punjab) through its Authorized Signatory Rupinder Singh, aged about 46 years S/o Gurbax Singh.
....Appellants/Complainants Versus ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., 1st Floor, Sharma Complex, 3039-A, G.T. Road, Bathinda-151001, through its Manager/Incharge Claims.
....Respondent/OP
11) First Appeal No.709 of 2022
Date of institution : 18.08.2022
Reserved On : 09.11.2023
Date of decision : 08.12.2023
1. M/s Shree Krishna Enterprises, SCO No.9, Opp. Urang Cinema, Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda-151001 (Punjab), Now Shop No.2, Opp. Hotel Stay Well, Railway Road, Bathinda-151001 (Punjab), through its Authorized Signatory Kunal Garg, aged 32 years S/o Gurdas Garg.
First Appeal No.699 of 2022 72. M/s Gurdas Agro (P) Ltd., 2301, Bhupinder Flour Mills, Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda-151001 (Punjab) through its Authorized Signatory Rupinder Singh, aged about 46 years S/o Gurbax Singh.
....Appellants/Complainants Versus ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., 1st Floor, Sharma Complex, 3039-A, G.T. Road, Bathinda-151001, through its Manager/Incharge Claims.
....Respondent/OP
12) First Appeal No.710 of 2022
Date of institution : 18.08.2022
Reserved On : 09.11.2023
Date of decision : 08.12.2023
1. M/s Gurdas Exports, Shop No.5, Aggarsain Nagar, Amirk Singh Road, Bathinda-151001 (Punjab), through its Authorized Signatory Kunal Garg, aged 32 years S/o Gurdas Garg.
2. M/s Gurdas Agro (P) Ltd., 2301, Bhupinder Flour Mills, Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda-151001 (Punjab) through its Authorized Signatory Rupinder Singh, aged about 46 years S/o Gurbax Singh.
....Appellants/Complainants Versus ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., 1st Floor, Sharma Complex, 3039-A, G.T. Road, Bathinda-151001, through its Manager/Incharge Claims.
....Respondent/OP
13) First Appeal No.711 of 2022
Date of institution : 18.08.2022
Reserved On : 09.11.2023
Date of decision : 08.12.2023
First Appeal No.699 of 2022 8
1. M/s Kunal Exports, Shop No.6, Aggarsain Nagar, Amirk Singh Road, Bathinda-151001 (Punjab), through its Sole Prop. Kunal Garg, aged 32 years S/o Gurdas Garg.
2. M/s Gurdas Agro (P) Ltd., 2301, Bhupinder Flour Mills, Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda-151001 (Punjab) through its Authorized Signatory Rupinder Singh, aged about 46 years S/o Gurbax Singh.
....Appellants/Complainants Versus ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., 1st Floor, Sharma Complex, 3039-A, G.T. Road, Bathinda-151001, through its Manager/Incharge Claims.
....Respondent/OP
14) First Appeal No.712 of 2022
Date of institution : 22.08.2022
Reserved On : 09.11.2023
Date of decision : 08.12.2023
1. M/s Neeharika Oils, 4664, Ist Floor, Dhobi Bazar, Bathinda-
151001 (Punjab), through its Sole Prop. Niharika Garg, aged about 29 years W/o Sh. Kunal Garg.
2. M/s Gurdas Agro (P) Ltd., 2301, Bhupinder Flour Mills, Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda-151001 (Punjab) through its Authorized Signatory Rupinder Singh, aged about 46 years S/o Gurbax Singh.
....Appellants/Complainants Versus ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., 1st Floor, Sharma Complex, 3039-A, G.T. Road, Bathinda-151001, through its Manager/Incharge Claims.
....Respondent/OP
First Appeal No.699 of 2022 9
15) First Appeal No.713 of 2022
Date of institution : 22.08.2022
Reserved On : 09.11.2023
Date of decision : 08.12.2023
1. M/s J.J. Exports, Shop No.12, Aggarsain Nagar, Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda-151001 (Punjab), through its Sole Prop. Ankit Sureshpal Jain, aged about 41 years S/o Sh. Sureshpal Jain.
2. M/s Gurdas Agro (P) Ltd., 2301, Bhupinder Flour Mills, Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda-151001 (Punjab) through its Authorized Signatory Rupinder Singh, aged about 46 years S/o Gurbax Singh.
....Appellants/Complainants Versus ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., 1st Floor, Sharma Complex, 3039-A, G.T. Road, Bathinda-151001, through its Manager/Incharge Claims.
....Respondent/OP
16) First Appeal No.714 of 2022
Date of institution : 22.08.2022
Reserved On : 09.11.2023
Date of decision : 08.12.2023
1. M/s G.K. Exim, Shop No.8-9, Aggarsain Nagar, Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda-151001 (Punjab), through its Sole Prop. Anu Garg, aged about 39 years W/o Sh. Ankit Sureshpal Jain.
2. M/s Gurdas Agro (P) Ltd., 2301, Bhupinder Flour Mills, Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda-151001 (Punjab) through its Authorized Signatory Rupinder Singh, aged about 46 years S/o Gurbax Singh.
....Appellants/Complainants Versus First Appeal No.699 of 2022 10 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., 1st Floor, Sharma Complex, 3039-A, G.T. Road, Bathinda-151001, through its Manager/Incharge Claims.
....Respondent/OP
17) First Appeal No.715 of 2022
Date of institution : 22.08.2022
Reserved On : 09.11.2023
Date of decision : 08.12.2023
1. M/s Neeharika Oils, 4664, Ist Floor, Dhobi Bazar, Bathinda-
151001 (Punjab), through its Sole Prop. Niharika Garg, aged about 29 years W/o Sh. Kunal Garg.
2. M/s Gurdas Agro (P) Ltd., 2301, Bhupinder Flour Mills, Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda-151001 (Punjab) through its Authorized Signatory Rupinder Singh, aged about 46 years S/o Gurbax Singh.
....Appellants/Complainants Versus ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., 1st Floor, Sharma Complex, 3039-A, G.T. Road, Bathinda-151001, through its Manager/Incharge Claims.
....Respondent/OP
18) First Appeal No.716 of 2022
Date of institution : 22.08.2022
Reserved On : 09.11.2023
Date of decision : 08.12.2023
1. M/s M.A. Enterprises, 25, DDA Market, Savita Vihar, Delhi-
110092, through its Authorized Signatory Kunal Garg aged about 32 years S/o Sh. Gurdas Garg.
2. M/s Gurdas Agro (P) Ltd., 2301, Bhupinder Flour Mills, Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda-151001 (Punjab) through its Authorized First Appeal No.699 of 2022 11 Signatory Rupinder Singh, aged about 46 years S/o Gurbax Singh.
....Appellants/Complainants Versus ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., 1st Floor, Sharma Complex, 3039-A, G.T. Road, Bathinda-151001, through its Manager/Incharge Claims.
....Respondent/OP
19) First Appeal No.717 of 2022
Date of institution : 22.08.2022
Reserved On : 09.11.2023
Date of decision : 08.12.2023
M/s Gurdas Agro (P) Ltd., 2301, Bhupinder Flour Mills, Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda-151001 (Punjab) through its Authorized Signatory Rupinder Singh, aged about 46 years S/o Gurbax Singh.
....Appellant/Complainant Versus ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., 1st Floor, Sharma Complex, 3039-A, G.T. Road, Bathinda-151001, through its Manager/Incharge Claims.
....Respondent/OP
20) First Appeal No.718 of 2022
Date of institution : 22.08.2022
Reserved On : 09.11.2023
Date of decision : 08.12.2023
M/s Gurdas Agro (P) Ltd., 2301, Bhupinder Flour Mills, Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda-151001 (Punjab) through its Authorized Signatory Rupinder Singh, aged about 46 years S/o Gurbax Singh.
....Appellant/Complainant Versus First Appeal No.699 of 2022 12 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., 1st Floor, Sharma Complex, 3039-A, G.T. Road, Bathinda-151001, through its Manager/Incharge Claims.
....Respondent/OP
21) First Appeal No.719 of 2022
Date of institution : 22.08.2022
Reserved On : 09.11.2023
Date of decision : 08.12.2023
1. M/s Sidhivinayak Exports, # 2935, Opp. Namdev Marg, G.T. Road, Bathinda-151001 (Punjab), through its Sole Prop. Usha Garg aged about 54 years, w/o Saran Das Garg.
2. M/s Gurdas Agro (P) Ltd., 2301, Bhupinder Flour Mills, Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda-151001 (Punjab), through its Authorized Signatory, Rupinder Singh aged about 46 years, S/o Sh. Gurbax Singh.
....Appellants/Complainants Versus ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., 1st Floor, Sharma Complex, 3039-A, G.T. Road, Bathinda-151001, through its Manager/Incharge Claims.
....Respondent/OP
22) First Appeal No.720 of 2022
Date of institution : 22.08.2022
Reserved On : 09.11.2023
Date of decision : 08.12.2023
1. M/s Gurdas Exports, Shop No.5, Aggarsain Nagar, Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda-151001 (Punjab), through its Authorized Signatory, Kunal Garg aged 32 years S/o Gurdas Garg.
2. M/s Gurdas Agro (P) Ltd., 2301, Bhupinder Flour Mills, Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda-151001 (Punjab), through its Authorized First Appeal No.699 of 2022 13 Signatory, Rupinder Singh aged about 46 years, s/o Sh. Gurbax Singh.
....Appellants/Complainants Versus ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., 1st Floor, Sharma Complex, 3039-A, G.T. Road, Bathinda-151001, through its Manager/Incharge Claims.
....Respondent/OP
23) First Appeal No.721 of 2022
Date of institution : 22.08.2022
Reserved On : 09.11.2023
Date of decision : 08.12.2023
1. M/s Gurdas Exports, Shop No.5, Aggarsain Nagar, Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda-151001 (Punjab), through its Authorized Signatory, Kunal Garg, aged 32 years S/o Gurdas Garg.
2. M/s Gurdas Agro (P) Ltd., 2301, Bhupinder Flour Mills, Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda-151001 (Punjab), through its Authorized Signatory, Rupinder Singh aged about 46 years, s/o Sh. Gurbax Singh.
....Appellants/Complainants Versus ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., 1st Floor, Sharma Complex, 3039-A, G.T. Road, Bathinda-151001, through its Manager/Incharge Claims.
....Respondent/OP
24) First Appeal No.722 of 2022
Date of institution : 22.08.2022
Reserved On : 09.11.2023
Date of decision : 08.12.2023
First Appeal No.699 of 2022 14
M/s Gurdas Agro (P) Ltd., 2301, Bhupinder Flour Mills, Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda-151001 (Punjab), through its Authorized Signatory, Rupinder Singh aged about 46 years, s/o S. Gurbax Singh.
....Appellant/Complainant Versus ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., 1st Floor, Sharma Complex, 3039-A, G.T. Road, Bathinda-151001, through its Manager/Incharge Claims.
....Respondent/OP
25) First Appeal No.723 of 2022
Date of institution : 22.08.2022
Reserved On : 09.11.2023
Date of decision : 08.12.2023
1. M/s IS Proteins Pvt. Ltd. 18, Chanderlok, 2nd Floor, Pitampura, Delhi-110034, through its Authorized Director, Hemant Jindal aged about 54 years, S/o Kewal Krishan Jindal.
2. M/s Gurdas Agro (P) Ltd., 2301, Bhupinder Flour Mills, Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda-151001 (Punjab), through its Authorized Signatory, Rupinder Singh aged about 46 years, s/o Sh. Gurbax Singh.
....Appellants/Complainants Versus ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., 1st Floor, Sharma Complex, 3039-A, G.T. Road, Bathinda-151001, through its Manager/Incharge Claims.
....Respondent/OP
26) First Appeal No.724 of 2022
Date of institution : 22.08.2022
Reserved On : 09.11.2023
Date of decision : 08.12.2023
First Appeal No.699 of 2022 15
1. M/s IS Proteins Pvt. Ltd., 18, Chanderlok, 2nd Floor, Pitampura, Delhi-110034, through its Authorized Director, Hemant Jindal aged about 54 years s/o Kewal Krishan Jindal.
2. M/s Gurdas Agro (P) Ltd., 2301, Bhupinder Flour Mills, Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda-151001 (Punjab), through its Authorized Signatory, Rupinder Singh aged about 46 years, s/o S. Gurbax Singh.
....Appellants/Complainants Versus ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., 1st Floor, Sharma Complex, 3039-A, G.T. Road, Bathinda-151001, through its Manager/Incharge Claims.
....Respondent/OP
27) First Appeal No.725 of 2022
Date of institution : 22.08.2022
Reserved On : 09.11.2023
Date of decision : 08.12.2023
1. M/s Sidhivinayak Exports, # 2935, Opp. Namdev Marg, G.T. Road, Bathinda-151001 (Punjab), through its Sole Prop., Usha Garg aged about 54 years w/o Saran Das Garg.
2. M/s Gurdas Agro (P) Ltd., 2301, Bhupinder Flour Mills, Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda-151001 (Punjab), through its Authorized Signatory, Rupinder Singh aged about 46 years, s/o Sh. Gurbax Singh.
....Appellants/Complainants Versus ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., 1st Floor, Sharma Complex, 3039-A, G.T. Road, Bathinda-151001, through its Manager/Incharge Claims.
First Appeal No.699 of 2022 16....Respondent/OP First Appeals under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the similar orders dated 28.06.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bathinda.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President
1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No
3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Present:-
For the Appellants : Sh. J.P. Nahar, Advocate For the Respondent : Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate.
JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY, PRESIDENT This order of ours shall dispose off twenty seven (27) First Appeals i.e. First Appeal No.699 of 2022, First Appeals No.700 of 2022, First Appeals No.701 of 2022, First Appeals No.702 of 2022, First Appeals No.703 of 2022, First Appeals No.704 of 2022, First Appeal No.705 of 2022, First Appeals No.706 of 2022, First Appeals No.707 of 2022, First Appeals No.708 of 2022, First Appeals No.709 of 2022, First Appeals No.710 of 2022, First Appeals No.711 of 2022, First Appeals No.712 of 2022, First Appeal No.713 of 2022, First Appeal No.714 of 2022, First Appeal No.715 of 2022, First Appeal No.716 of 2022, First Appeal No.717 of 2022, First Appeal No.718 of 2022, First Appeal No.719 of 2022, First Appeal No.720 of 2022, First Appeal No.721 of 2022, First Appeal No.722 of 2022, First Appeal No.723 of 2022, First Appeal No.724 of 2022 and First Appeal No.725 of 2022, as similar First Appeal No.699 of 2022 17 questions of law and facts are involved therein and the same have been filed by the Appellants/OPs against the similar orders passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bathinda (in short, "the District Commission"). However, the facts are being extracted from First Appeal No.699 of 2022.First Appeal No.699 of 2022
2. Appellants/Complainants i.e. M/s Kunal Exports & Infrastructure and another have filed the present Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the impugned order dated 28.06.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bathinda (in short, "the District Commission"), whereby the Application filed by the Respondent/OP for dismissal of the Complaint was allowed and the Consumer Complaint No.114 of 2020 filed by the Appellants/Complainants was returned with liberty to file it before the appropriate Commission having the jurisdiction.
3. It would be apposite to mention here that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Commission.
4. Briefly the facts, which are necessary for the disposal of the present Appeal(s) are that the Complainants had filed the Complaint before the District Commission under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be referred as 'Act of 1986'), wherein the notice was issued to the Respondent/OP and the OP had appeared through Counsel. During the pendency of the First Appeal No.699 of 2022 18 Complaint, an Application was filed by the OP for dismissal of the Complaint stating therein that the District Commission was not having the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and decide the Complaint. It was also mentioned in the said Application that the premium of ₹2,37,76,434/- was paid by the Complainants for obtaining the Insurance Policy, which exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Commission as it was ₹20 lac under the old Act of 1986 and ₹1 Crore under the New Act i.e. Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter to be referred as 'Act of 2019').
5. Reply to said Application was also filed by the Complainants, stating therein that the premium paid by them for the concerned consignment was only ₹5,28,360/-, for which a separate Certificate of Insurance was issued by the OP. The total relief claimed in the Complaint was below ₹20 lac and as such the District Commission was having the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and decide the Complaint.
6. The District Commission had allowed the Application filed by the OP vide order dated 28.06.2022 and returned the Complaint to the Complainants with the liberty to file it before the appropriate Commission having the jurisdiction. The relevant portion of said order dated 28.06.2022 passed by the District Commission is reproduced as under:
" Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 deals with the jurisdiction of the District Forum:-First Appeal No.699 of 2022 19
"11 (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain Complaints where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claim does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs."
So, in this case, the value of the purchased Policyis Rs.50,02,054,990/- and relief claimed is Rs.6,76,380/- as loss assessed and survey fee, Rs.1,00,000/- on account of mental agony, pains and Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses i.e. totaling Rs.5,002,881,370/- which exceeds pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum (Now Commission).
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the Complaint, the determination for computing the pecuniary jurisdiction of a Consumer Commission being the value of the Policyand compensation claimed, we are of considered view that this Commission is handicapped to hear and decide this Complaint. Therefore, in view of the case law cited by learned counsel of opposite party and legal provision detailed above, this Application is allowed. Accordingly, the present Complaint is returned, granting liberty to file it before the appropriate Commission enjoying the jurisdiction thereof.
Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room."
7. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 28.06.2022 passed by the District Commission, the Appellants/Complainants have filed the present Appeal by raising a number of arguments.
8. Mr. J.P. Nahar, learned counsel for the Appellants/Complainants has submitted that the District Commission has failed to appreciate a material fact that the Complainants have submitted that the 'Marine Open Import Declaration Policy' (Ex.C-5) was obtained by them for the sum assured of ₹5,002,054,990/- for the estimated shipments during the entire Policyperiod and had paid the total premium of ₹2,37,76,434/- for all the shipments to be made. The judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission of case M/s Pyaridevi First Appeal No.699 of 2022 20 Chabiraj Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. was not applicable as it was relating to the claim under Fire Policy. Learned counsel has further submitted that the District Commission had also failed to take judicial notice of the Policy details.
As per the terms and conditions of the Policy, a declaration was required to be furnished on 5th of every month for each and every transit commenced in the preceding month. Learned counsel has also submitted that in the Declaration Format, which was provided by the OP, there was a column of the 'Cargo Sum Insured' and for this Sum Insured, the premium was being charged and the Certificate of Insurance was required to be generated for each transit. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the premium charged for the specific Certificate of Insurance was relevant to determine the pecuniary jurisdiction and not the total of all the declarations as made during the entire Policy period. There was a mention i.e. 'Marine Open Policy Condition Export/Import Transit'. Clause 1.1.1 of the Policy had provided that the Open Policy was effected to insure the interest as specified, which was despatched either by or for account of the insured, wherein they were having an insurable interest. Learned counsel has further submitted that as per Clause 1.2 of the Policy, the insured was bound to declare each and every consignment without any exception, the Company was bound to accept the same up to that limit but not exceeding the sum insured as specified in Para-I of the schedule. Learned counsel has further submitted that it was clear from First Appeal No.699 of 2022 21 the 'Marine Open Policy Condition' itself that the sum insured as mentioned in the schedule of the Policy was the only sum total of all the consignments to be sent, for which the declarations were to be made by the Insured during the entire Policy period. In the Policy, the premium was to be charged for insuring the consignment for its journey from one place to another and the risk was to be terminated on reaching its destination and for that purpose, the duration could be of few days or even a month. Learned counsel has further submitted that the sum insured as mentioned in the schedule of the Policy was only the estimated total of consignments to be at risk during the Policy period and the premium so paid was by way of advance premium.
Learned counsel has further submitted that while determining the pecuniary jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Act of 2019, which was effected w.e.f. 20.07.2020, the District Commission was having the jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint, as per the premium so paid under the Certificate of Insurance, which was only an amount of ₹5,28,360/-, which was not exceeding ₹1 Crore at the relevant time for insuring the consignment of ₹13,20,00,000/-. In case the Complaint was considered under the old Act i.e. the Act of 1986, the claimed amount i.e. ₹8,26,380/- (₹6,76,380+1,00,000 +50,000/-) was lesser than ₹20 lac. Learned counsel has further submitted that the District Commission had also failed to appreciate that the Policy was an arrangement between the Insured and the Insurer for providing un- interrupted and automatic insurance for all the shipments made during First Appeal No.699 of 2022 22 the Policy period, unless the sum insured was exhausted by the declarations so made. As such, the Insured was bound to declare all the shipments so made and the Insurer was also bound to accept, in case the shipment was left out even by mistake and remained undeclared. Further it has been submitted that the Insured was required to obtain a specific Policy for each shipment and to pay the premium on the value of that shipment. At the end, learned counsel has submitted that the findings recorded by the District Commission are not worth appreciating and the specific Certificate of Insurance was to be taken into consideration and not the main Policy. The District Commission was having the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint and as such the impugned order dated 28.06.2022 is liable to be set aside.
9. Mr. Sandeep Suri, learned counsel for the Respondent/OP has submitted that the Insurance Policy was purchased by the Complainants for the total sum insured of ₹5,00,20,54,990/-, for which total premium paid by the Complainant was ₹2,37,76,434/-, which had exceeded ₹20 lac under the old Act of 1986 and ₹1 Crore under the new Act of 2019 respectively. The District Commission has passed the impugned order by giving categorical findings by relying upon a number of judgments and the Appeal is liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel has also relied upon the following judgments in support of his contentions:
i) Heena v. Hiten SCA/17461/2011, decided on 22.12.2011;First Appeal No.699 of 2022 23
ii) Ligare Aviation Limited v. Oriental Insurance Co. Consumer Case No.7 of 20221,decided on 29.07.2021 (NC);
iii) M/s Pyaridevi Chabiraj Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. Consumer Case No.833 of 2020, decided on 28.08.2020 (NC); and
iv) M/s Maharani of India v. Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. RP No.1794 of 2017 decided on 11.01.2018 (NC).
10. We have heard the arguments raised by learned counsel for the parties. We have also carefully perused the impugned order passed by the District Commission, written arguments submitted by both the parties and all other relevant documents available on the file.
11. Admittedly, the Complainant No.1-M/s Kunal Exports & Infrastructure is a Sole Proprietorship Firm and Complainant No.2-M/s Gurdas Agro (P) Ltd. is a Private Limited Company. Complainant No.2 had been purchasing the Insurance Policies from the OP since the year 2013 for itself and its twenty sister concerns, including the Complainant No.1. A 'Marine Open Import Declaration Policy' bearing No.2002/1/143604549/00/000 was purchased by the Complainants, which was valid for the period w.e.f. 29.12.2017 to 28.12.2018. The sum insured under the said Policywas ₹5,00,20,54,990/-, for which a total premium of ₹2,37,76,434/- was paid.
12. The Complaints were filed by the Complainants before the District Commission. In all the Complaints, the Respondent/OP had filed Applications for dismissal of the Complaints. Said Applications First Appeal No.699 of 2022 24 were allowed by the District Commission vide similar orders dated 28.06.2022 on the ground that the District Commission was not having the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and decide the Complaints filed by the Appellants/Complainants and all the Complaints were returned with the liberty to file the same before the appropriate Commission having the jurisdiction.
13. The issue for consideration by this Commission is as to whether the District Commission was having the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and decide the Complaints or not?
14. For deciding said issue, the relevant provisions of both the Acts i.e. the Act of 1986 and the Act of 2019 are to be taken into consideration.
15. Section 11 (1) of the Act of 1986 deals with the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Commission qua to the Complaints filed under the said Act and the same is reproduced as under:
"11. Jurisdiction of the District Forum:
(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain Complaints where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed ''does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs."
16. Similarly, Section 34 (1) of the Act of 2019 deals with the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Commission qua to the Complaints filed under the said Act and the same is reproduced as under:
"34. Jurisdiction of the District Forum:
(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain Complaints where the value of the First Appeal No.699 of 2022 25 goods or services paid as consideration does not exceed one crore rupees."
17. It is relevant to mention that the Complaint which is the subject matter of First Appeal No.699 of 2022, was filed on 16.07.2020. The Act of 2019 came into force w.e.f. 20.07.2020. As such, the Complaint was filed under the Act of 1986. As per Section 11 (1) of the Act of 1986, the District Forum was having the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain Complaints, where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed had not exceeded ₹20 lac. In the prayer Clause, the Complainants had prayed that the OP be directed to pay the claim amount of ₹6,76,380/-
(₹6,60,450/- as the loss assessed the Surveyor plus ₹15,930/- as survey fee) along with interest @ 18% per annum and also to pay compensation of ₹1 lac for causing mental agony and harassment as well as ₹50,000/- as litigation expenses. Therefore, the total relief claimed in the Complaint coupled with the value of the goods i.e. ₹5,00,20,54,990/- being the sum insured under the Policy exceeds ₹20 lac under the Act of 1986. Therefore, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Commission was clearly barred.
18. The stand of the Complainants is that in the Declaration Format, which was provided by the OP, there was a column of the 'Cargo Sum Insured' and on this Sum Insured, the premium was being charged and the Certificate of Insurance was required to be generated for each transit. The premium paid under the Certificate of Insurance First Appeal No.699 of 2022 26 (Annexure A-3) was only an amount of ₹5,28,360/- for insuring the consignment for the sum insured of ₹13,20,90,000/-. Even in that case if said Certificate of Insurance is to be taken into consideration, then also the sum insured under said Certificate of Insurance was ₹13,20,90,000/-. The total relief claimed in the Complaint coupled with said sum insured also exceeds ₹20 lac as per the provisions of the Act of 1986.
19. Similarly, in First Appeals No.700 of 2022, First Appeals No.701 of 2022, First Appeals No.702 of 2022, First Appeals No.703 of 2022, First Appeals No.704 of 2022, the Complaints were filed on 16.07.2020, which were under the Act of 1986, as is apparent from the record of the District Commission attached with the said Appeals. In all said cases, same Insurance Policy was involved i.e. 'Marine Open Import Declaration Policy' bearing No.2002/1/143604549/00/000, which was valid for the period w.e.f.
29.12.2017 to 28.12.2018. The sum insured under the said Policy was ₹5,00,20,54,990/-, for which a total premium of ₹2,37,76,434/-
was paid. In all said cases, even the Certificates of Insurance issued under the main Policy were having the sum insured more than ₹1 Crore. Although, the relief claimed in said Appeals was below ₹20 lac but by taking into consideration the relief claimed in the Complaint along with the sum insured of the Insurance Policy/Certificates of Insurance, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Commission was certainly barred.
First Appeal No.699 of 2022 2720. So far as the rest of all 21 Appeals i.e. First Appeal No.705 of 2022, First Appeals No.706 of 2022, First Appeals No.707 of 2022, First Appeals No.708 of 2022, First Appeals No.709 of 2022, First Appeals No.710 of 2022, First Appeals No.711 of 2022, First Appeals No.712 of 2022, First Appeal No.713 of 2022, First Appeal No.714 of 2022, First Appeal No.715 of 2022, First Appeal No.716 of 2022, First Appeal No.717 of 2022, First Appeal No.718 of 2022, First Appeal No.719 of 2022, First Appeal No.720 of 2022, First Appeal No.721 of 2022, First Appeal No.722 of 2022, First Appeal No.723 of 2022, First Appeal No.724 of 2022 and First Appeal No.725 of 2022 are concerned, the Complaints were filed on 29.07.2020, 06.08.2020, 13.08.2020 and 19.08.2020 i.e. after coming into force of the New Act of 2019, as is apparent from the record of the District Commission attached with the said Appeals.
21. As per Section 34(1) of the Act of 2019 as mentioned above, the District Commission was having the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain Complaints, where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration was not exceeding ₹1 Crore.
22. Later on, vide Notification dated 30.12.2021, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Commission, State Commission and National Commission was revised. As per Section-4 of said Notification, Section 47(1) (a) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 has been amended, which reads as under:
First Appeal No.699 of 2022 281. District Commissions shall have jurisdiction to entertain Complaints where value of the goods or services paid as consideration does not exceed 50 lakh rupees.
2. State Commissions shall have jurisdiction to entertain Complaints where value of the goods or services paid as consideration exceeds 50 lakh rupees but does not exceed 2 crore rupees.
3. National Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain Complaints where value of the goods or services paid as consideration exceeds 2 crore rupees.
23. However, the Complaints in the above appeals were filed prior to said amendment, so the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Commission is to be ascertained keeping in view of the limit as given in Section 34(1) of the Act of 2019 before amendment i.e. ₹1 Crore.
24. In all the said 21 Appeals also, the aforesaid joint Insurance Policy was involved i.e. 'Marine Open Import Declaration Policy' bearing No.2002/1/143604549/00/000, which was valid for the period w.e.f. 29.12.2017 to 28.12.2018. The sum insured under the said Policy was ₹5,00,20,54,990/-, for which a total premium of ₹2,37,76,434/- was paid. The contention of learned counsel for the Appellants is that the specific premium amount was paid for each Certificate of Insurance in all the said Appeals, which was much below the limit of ₹1 Crore as provided under Section 34 (1) of the Act of 2019 at the time of filing of the Complaints. Said contention of the Appellants is not acceptable, as the total premium paid for taking the master/main Policy was ₹2,37,76,434/-, which is to be taken into consideration as value of the services/goods paid for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District in the Complaints filed under the New Act of 2019. As such, the value of First Appeal No.699 of 2022 29 the services/goods i.e. sum insured under the Policy exceeds ₹1 Crore.
25. The question of pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Commissions was discussed in detail in the judgment passed by the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble National Commission in case of Ambrish Kumar Shukla & 21 Ors. v. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. I (2017) CPJ 1 (NC). The relevant portion of said judgment is reproduced as under:
"Issue No. (ii) and (iii):
12. Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that this Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain Complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds Rs.1.00 crore. Therefore, what has to be seen, for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction, is the value of the goods or services and the amount of the compensation claimed in the Complaint. If the aggregate of (i) the value of the goods or services and (ii) the compensation claimed in the Complaint exceeds Rs.1.00 crore, this Commission would have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint. Similarly, if the aggregate of the value of (i) the goods or services and (ii) compensation, if any, claimed in the Complaint exceeds Rs.20.00 lacs but does not exceed Rs.1.00 Crore, the State Commission would have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint. Since a Complaint under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act can be filed only where there are numerous consumers having the same interest and it has to be filed on behalf of or for the benefit of all the consumers so interested i.e. all of the numerous consumers having the same interest, it is the aggregate of the value of the goods purchased or services hired or availed of, by all those numerous consumers and the total compensation, if any, claimed for all those numerous consumers, which would determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. If the aggregate of the value of the goods purchased or the services hired or availed of by all the consumers having the same interest and the total compensation, if any, claimed for all of them comes to more than Rs.1.00 crore, the pecuniary jurisdiction would rest with this Commission alone. The value of the goods purchased or the services hired or availed of and the quantum of compensation, if any, claimed in respect of the one individual consumer therefore, would be absolutely irrelevant for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction in such a Complaint. In fact, this issue is no more res Integra in view of the decision of a Four-Members Bench of this Commission in Public Health Engineering Department Vs. First Appeal No.699 of 2022 30 Upbhokta Sanrakshan Samiti I (1992) CPJ 182 (NC). In the above referred case, a Complaint was preferred, seeking to recover compensation for alleged negligence on the part of the petitioner which had resulted in a large number of persons getting infected by Jaundice. The names of 46 such persons were mentioned in the Complaint but it was alleged that there were thousands of other sufferers who were similarly placed and that Complaint was filed on behalf of all of them. The Complainant had sought compensation of Rs.20,000/- for every student victim, Rs.10,000/- for every general victim and Rs.1,00,000/- for the legal representatives of those who had died due to Jaundice. The District Forum held that it had no pecuniary jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the Complaint. The State Commission took the view that the District Forum has to go by the value as specified for each consumer. Rejecting the view taken by the State Commission, this Commission inter-alia held as under:
"5. In our opinion this proposition is clearly wrong since under the terms of Section 11 of the Act the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum would depend upon the quantum of compensation claimed in the petition. The view expressed by the State Commission is not based on a correct understanding or interpretation of Section 11. On the plain words used in Section 11 of the Act, the aggregate quantum of compensation claimed in the petition will determine the question of jurisdiction and when the Complaint is filed in a representative capacity on behalf of several persons, as in the present case, the total amount of compensation claimed by the representative body on behalf of all the persons whom it represents will govern the valuation of the Complaint petition for purposes of jurisdiction".
6. The quantum of compensation claimed in the petition being far in excess of Rs.1.00 lac the District Forum was perfectly right in holding that it had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the Complaint. The reversal of the said order by the State Commission was contrary to law".
Therefore, irrespective of the value of the goods purchased or the service hired and availed of by an individual purchaser / allottee and the compensation claimed in respect of an individual purchaser / allottee, this Commission would have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint if the aggregate of the value of the goods purchased or the services hired or availed of by the numerous consumers on whose behalf or for whose benefit the Complaint is filed and the total compensation claimed for all of them exceeds Rs.1.00 crore.
....................................
Reference order dated 11.8.2016:
Issue No. (i)
14. It is evident from a bare perusal of Sections 21, 17 and 11 of the Consumer Protection Act that it's the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed which determines the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum.First Appeal No.699 of 2022 31
The Act does not envisage determination of the pecuniary jurisdiction based upon the cost of removing the deficiencies in the goods purchased or the services to be rendered to the consumer. Therefore, the cost of removing the defects or deficiencies in the goods or the services would have no bearing on the determination of the pecuniary jurisdiction. If the aggregate of the value of the goods purchased or the services hired or availed of by a consumer, when added to the compensation, if any, claimed in the Complaint by him, exceeds Rs. 1.00 crore, it is this Commission alone which would have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint. For instance if a person purchases a machine for more than Rs.1.00 crore, a manufacturing defect is found in the machine and the cost of removing the said defect is Rs.10.00 lacs, it is the aggregate of the sale consideration paid by the consumer for the machine and compensation, if any, claimed in the Complaint which would determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum. Similarly, if for instance, a house is sold for more than Rs.1.00 crore, certain defects are found in the house, and the cost of removing those defects is Rs.5.00 lacs, the Complaint would have to be filed before this Commission, the value of the services itself being more than Rs.1.00 crore.
......................................................
Issue No. (iii) Conflicting orders have been passed by the Benches of this Commission as to cut off date for determining the value of the goods or the services, as the case may be, in terms of Section 21, 17 and 11 of the Consumer Protection Act. One view is that the value of the goods or services means the consideration agreed to be paid by the consumer for the goods purchased or the services hired and availed of, whereas the other view is that the value of the goods or services as the case may be, for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum should be the market value of the goods or services on the date of institution of the consumer Complaint. Though, the use of the word "value" in the above referred Sections, tends to suggest that it is the market price of the goods or the services, as the case may be, which when added to the amount of compensation, if any, claimed in the Complaint, should determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum, on a deeper consideration we are of the view that it is the price of the goods or the services as the case may be agreed to be paid by the consumer which would be relevant for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction. If the market price of the goods or the services as the case may be, on the date of institution of the Complaint is to determine the pecuniary jurisdiction, the market price being dynamic and ever fluctuating, this would create an unending uncertainty with respect to the Consumer Forum before which the Complaint is to be instituted. For instance, if there are 10 flat buyers in the same project, identical consideration is agreed to be paid by them to the service provider, one of them decides to approach the Consumer Forum at a time when the prevailing market value of the flat is more than Rs.1.00 crore, the Complaint will have to be instituted before this Commission. If the prevailing market value of the flat at the time First Appeal No.699 of 2022 32 when another flat buyer who agreed to pay the same consideration to the service provider decides to approach the Consumer Forum is less than Rs.1.00 crore, he will have to approach the concerned State Commission. Therefore, there will be two separate Forums dealing with the Complaints of these two consumers who agreed to pay same price for the flat purchased by them. In one case, the order passed in the consumer Complaint would be challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court whereas in the other case, it would be challenged before this Commission. Creating such an anomalous situation, in our view, could not have been the legislative intent.
Moreover, if the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum varies with the market price of the goods or services at the time the Complaint is instituted; there is a likelihood of the valuation given by the Complainant, being seriously challenged by the opposite party. If this happens, the Consumer Forum will first have to determine the market price of the goods or services as the case may be, at the time of institution of the Complaint. Such a determination is likely to be a time consuming process, besides being incapable of determination by way of a summary procedure, which the Consumer Forums are adopting. Such an interpretation therefore, is likely to be counterproductive and result in an inordinate delay in the disposal of the consumer Complaint. On the other hand, no such difficulty is likely to arise if the sale consideration agreed to be paid by the consumer is taken as the value of the goods or services. In that case, the amount of compensation as claimed in the Complaint needs to be added to the agreed consideration and the aggregate of the consideration and the compensation claimed in the Complaint would determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum."
26. The District Commission has also rightly applied the ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission in case of M/s Pyaridevi Chabiraj Steels Pvt. Ltd. (supra), wherein the reliance was also placed on the case of Ambrish Kumar Shukla (supra). The relevant portion of said judgment as mentioned in Para-7 and 8 is reproduced as under:
"7. The submission made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Complainant cannot be accepted. It is no doubt true that under the Act of 1986, pecuniary jurisdiction was to be determined by taking the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed. Meaning thereby that the value of the goods or services as also the compensation is to be added to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the National Commission has the jurisdiction or not. This law was laid down by a three Member Bench of this Commission in Ambrish Kumar Shukla & 21 Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, I (2017) CPJ I (NC). Thus in the Act of 1986 it was "the value of the goods or services and the First Appeal No.699 of 2022 33 compensation claimed" taken into consideration while determining the pecuniary jurisdiction. For example, if a person has agreed to purchase a Flat/ Apartment/ Plot for about Rs.60,00,000/- and he is claiming refund as also compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- then the value will exceed Rs.1,00,00,000/- and the Consumer Complaint has to be filed before the National Commission. Similar, would be the case of taking Insurance Policyof above Rs.1,00,00,000/-or may be below Rs.1,00,00,000/- but taking into consideration the premium paid and the compensation claimed if the value exceeds Rs.1,00,00,000/- the Consumer Complaint has to be filed before the National Commission.
8. It appears that the Parliament, while enacting the Act of 2019 was conscious of this fact and to ensure that Consumer should approach the appropriate Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission whether it is District, State or National only the value of the consideration paid should be taken into consideration while determining the pecuniary jurisdiction and not value of the goods or services and compensation, and that is why a specific provision has been made in Sections 34 (1), 47 (1) (a) (i) and 58 (1) (a) (i) providing for the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the National Commission respectively."
27. It is also relevant to mention here that the judgment passed by the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Ambrish Kumar Shukla (supra) has been affirmed by a Five-
Member Bench of the Hon'ble National Commission vide Order dated 26.10.2021 passed in CC No. 1703 of 2018 (Renu Singh v.
Experion Developers Private Limited) and other connected matters, wherein it was held that the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble National Commission in Ambrish Kumar Shukla (supra) has laid down the law correctly on the issue relating to pecuniary jurisdiction. The relevant portion of said judgment in Para-24 is reproduced as under:
"24. In view of the aforesaid discussions, our answers are as follows:-
(i) The Full Bench of this Commission in Ambrish Kumar Shukla & 21 Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., I (2017) CPJ 1 (NC) lays down the law correctly on the issue relating to pecuniary jurisdiction.First Appeal No.699 of 2022 34
(ii) What should be the value of goods or services where the refund of paid money has been sought?
Answer:- Sale consideration, which was agreed between the parties for buying the goods or hiring or availing the services is relevant for determination of pecuniary jurisdiction in cases of refund also.
(iii) What should be the period for which the interest should be taken as compensation for adding to the value of goods or services for the purpose of availing the pecuniary jurisdiction of the consumer forum?
Answer:- For the purposes of determination of pecuniary jurisdiction, the rate of interest or period of interest as claim in the Complaint alone has to be examined. However, the claim has to be proved in accordance with law and the relief is always subject to law of limitation and rule of estoppel and acquiescence. In view of power of condonation of delay as provided under Section 24-A (2) of the Act, the limit of two years for calculation of interest cannot be fixed either for the purposes of pecuniary jurisdiction or for granting the relief."
28. In view of the above detailed discussion as well as the facts and circumstances and also the law as laid down in the said judgments, it is apparent that the District Commission was not having pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and decide the Complaints under both the Acts i.e. the Act of 1986 and the Act of 2019, as the sum assured/insured under the main Insurance Policy was ₹5,00,20,54,990/-, for which a total premium of ₹2,37,76,434/- was paid. Even the sum assured/insured under the separate Certificates of Insurance was also of more than ₹1 Crore each. It is a settled proposition of law that the words of a statute should be first understood in their natural and ordinary sense and phrases and sentences should be construed according to their grammatical meaning, unless that leads to some absurdity. The provisions of both the Acts have been explicitly worded and there is no ambiguity or uncertainty therein. The First Appeal No.699 of 2022 35 pecuniary jurisdiction has to be determined as per the provisions of both the Acts and not as per own interpretation of the parties. The District Commission has passed the impugned orders by taking into consideration the provisions of the both Acts in their right perspective.
29. Accordingly, finding no force in the contentions raised by learned counsel for the Appellants/Complainants, all the Appeals filed by the Appellants/Complainants i.e. First Appeal No.699 of 2022, First Appeals No.700 of 2022, First Appeals No.701 of 2022, First Appeals No.702 of 2022, First Appeals No.703 of 2022, First Appeals No.704 of 2022, First Appeal No.705 of 2022, First Appeals No.706 of 2022, First Appeals No.707 of 2022, First Appeals No.708 of 2022, First Appeals No.709 of 2022, First Appeals No.710 of 2022, First Appeals No.711 of 2022, First Appeals No.712 of 2022, First Appeal No.713 of 2022, First Appeal No.714 of 2022, First Appeal No.715 of 2022, First Appeal No.716 of 2022, First Appeal No.717 of 2022, First Appeal No.718 of 2022, First Appeal No.719 of 2022, First Appeal No.720 of 2022, First Appeal No.721 of 2022, First Appeal No.722 of 2022, First Appeal No.723 of 2022, First Appeal No.724 of 2022 and First Appeal No.725 of 2022 are hereby dismissed and the impugned orders passed by the District Commission are upheld.
30. Since the main cases have been disposed off, so all the pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, are accordingly disposed off.
First Appeal No.699 of 2022 3631. The Appeals could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY) PRESIDENT December 08, 2023.
(Gurmeet S)