State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Shreeji Knittings vs Bajaj Allianz Gen Ins Co Ltd on 30 December, 2021
Details DD MM YY
Date of disposal 30 12 2021
Date of filing 30 01 2021
Duration -- 11 --
BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
GUJARAT STATE, AHMEDABAD
COURT NO: 04
C.C. NO. 07 of 2021
M/s. Shreeji Knittings,
Vipulbhai Keshavbhai Vekariya
Office at: Plot no. 10,
Shivdhara Rashel Park,
Dhoranpardi, Kamrej, Gujarat. ...Complainant
V/s.
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Registered office at: GE Plaza,
Airport Road, Yerawada, Pune. ...Opponent.
BEFORE: Dr. J.G. Mecwan, Presiding Member,
Smt. Usha P. Jani, Member.
APPEARANCE: Mr. H.H. Dave, ld. Adv. for the complainant.
Mr. V.P. Nanavaty, ld. Advocate for opponent.
ORAL ORDER: [BY DR. J.G. MECWAN, PRESIDING MEMBER]
1. This is an application filed by the complainant under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. Heard, ld. Adv. Mr. Gaurav Goyal for ld. Advocate Mr. H.H. Dave for the complainant and ld. Adv. Mr. Darshil Parikh for ld. Adv. Mr. V.P. Nanavaty for opponent.
3. Facts of the application and arguments.
3.1 It is the case of the complainant that complainant availed the Standard Fire and Specific Perils Policy from the opponent company and added on cover of earthquake with clean foundation and during the period of the said policy fire was taken place in his factory and therefore the claim was made with the opponent Insurance Company for the loss occurred to the factory. Subsequently after entire investigation the opponent Company repudiated the claim of the complainant and therefore complainant has filed present Consumer Compliant before this Commission.
4. Reply of the opponent and submissions.
Learned Advocate Mr. Darshil Parikh for the opponent has submitted that the value of consideration paid by present Page 1 of 4 R.I. DESAI CC/07/2021 complainant is Rs. 20,900/- which is not above one Crore and Hon'ble State Commission has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the present complaint according to provisions of Consumer protection Act 2019 and therefore the present Compliant is not maintainable before this Commission due to lack of pecuniary jurisdiction.
5. Merits of the case In the present case a preliminary point arises as to whether this Consumer Complaint is maintainable before the State Commission or not? The only question to be decided by this Commission is regarding jurisdiction. As per Section 47(1) of the New Act, the pecuniary jurisdiction is determined by taking value of goods or services paid as consideration exceeds rupees 01 Crore, but does not exceeds rupees 10 Crore. In the present case complainant has only paid Rs. 20,900/- towards the consideration which is not above Rs. 01 Crore.
The order passed by Hon'ble National Commission in M/s. Pyaridevi Chabiraj Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd & Ors. is binding and I rely on para 7, 8, 9 and 10. The said paras are reproduced below:
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 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 Policy of 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 Page 2 of 4 R.I. DESAI CC/07/2021 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.
9. For ready reference the provisions of Sections 34 (1), 47 (1) (a)
(i) and 58 (1) (a) (i) of the Act of 2019 are reproduced below:
"34. (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 one crore rupees:"
"47. (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the State Commission shall have jurisdiction--
(a) to entertain--
(i) Complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration, exceeds rupees one crore, but does not exceed rupees ten crore:"
"58. (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the National Commission shall have jurisdiction--
(a) to entertain--
(i) complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration exceeds rupees ten crore:"
10. From a reading of the aforesaid provisions it is amply clear that for determining 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.
6. Finally it was held by Hon'ble National Commission that there was no jurisdiction to entertain the present Consumer Complaint and it was accordingly dismissed as not maintainable.
7. Considering the citation of Hon'ble National Commission in M/s. Pyaridevi [Supra] it is clear that for deciding the pecuniary jurisdiction the value of goods or services paid as consideration has to be taken. In the present case complainant has paid Rs. 20,900/- towards the consideration to opponents, this amount cannot reach the State Commission limit of Rs. 01 Crore. Hence this present complaint is not maintainable before this Commission for want of jurisdiction.
8. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that as the value of consideration paid by the complainant is only Rs.
Page 3 of 4R.I. DESAI CC/07/2021 20,900/- (Rupees twenty thousand and nine hundred only) which is not above Rs. 1 Crore and hence the State Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the present Consumer Complaint and therefore the following final order is passed.
ORDER
1. Present Complaint no. 07/2021 is dismissed as not maintainable before this State Commission.
2. The complainant is permitted to file appropriate proceeding before the appropriate Commission according to law. It goes without saying that time spend in the proceeding before State Commission is excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act for filing appropriate proceeding.
3. No order as to costs.
4. Office is directed to verify the amount deposited by the complainant in Compliant no. 07/2021 and if found deposited, refund the same with interest, if any, accrued on the deposit to the appellant by issuing A/c. payee cheque in the name of the complainant. The A/c. payee cheque may be handed over to the attending advocate after following due procedure and verification.
5. Copies of this order to be provided free of costs to the parties.
Pronounced in the open Court today on 30th December, 2021.
[Dr. J.G. Mecwan]
Presiding Member
[Usha P. Jani]
Member
Page 4 of 4
R.I. DESAI CC/07/2021