State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sh. Satish Chander Gaktu. vs Iffico Tokio Gen. Insu. Co. Ltd. on 10 March, 2015
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
SHIMLA.
Revision Petition No.58/2014
Date of Presentation: 16.09.2014
Date of Decision: 10.03.2015
..........................................................................................
Satish Chander Gaktu, son of Shri Krishan Chand,
Resident of Village Deorighat (Dhullu), P.O. Tikkar,
Tehsil Rohru, District Shimla, H.P.
........... Petitioner.
Versus
IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited,
Plot No.2-B & C, Sector 28-A,
Madhya Marg, Chandigarh,
Through its Branch Manager/Authorized Officer.
........... Respondent.
..........................................................................................
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, President
Hon'ble Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member
Hon'ble Mr. Vijay Pal Khachi, Member
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Petitioner: Mr. Peeyush Verma, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Virender Sharma, Advocate.
..............................................................................
O R D E R:
Justice Surjit Singh, President (Oral) Present revision petition is directed against the order dated 23.04.2014, of learned 1 Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? Satish Chander Gaktu Versus IFFCO TOKIO Gen. Insurance Co. Ltd.
(Revision Petition No.58/2014) ___________________________________________________________________ District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla, whereby petitioner's complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which he filed against the respondent, has been ordered to be returned, with the finding that the relief claimed, exceeds the upper limit of pecuniary jurisdiction of the Forum.
2. Petitioner filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging that his house was insured with the respondent, in the sum of `20.00 lacs and that during the currency of insurance contract, a fire broke out and the house was damaged. According to the complainant, damage caused to the house was to the tune of `18,51,030/-. He claimed the aforesaid amount of money from the respondent. Claim was repudiated by the respondent. Complainant, therefore, filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking a direction to the respondent to pay an amount of `18,51,030/-, on account of insurance money; `50,000/-, as Page 2 of 5 Satish Chander Gaktu Versus IFFCO TOKIO Gen. Insurance Co. Ltd.
(Revision Petition No.58/2014) ___________________________________________________________________ compensation for harassment and the expenses, incurred by him on paying visits to the office of the respondent and in addition, he sought interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
3. Learned District Forum, vide impugned order (without there being any specific objection from the respondent that the relief claimed exceeded the upper limit of pecuniary jurisdiction of the Forum) has ordered the return of complaint, with the finding that the relief claimed exceeds the upper limit of its pecuniary jurisdiction. While taking this view, learned District Forum has observed that if the amount of interest is added to the money claimed, on account of insurance claim and damages, the sum total would exceed `20.00 lacs, its upper limit of pecuniary jurisdiction.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
5. A bare reading of Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, shows that for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction, Page 3 of 5 Satish Chander Gaktu Versus IFFCO TOKIO Gen. Insurance Co. Ltd.
(Revision Petition No.58/2014) ___________________________________________________________________ what is required to be taken into consideration, is the value of goods, or services and the compensation, if any claimed. There is no reference to the interest part in this Section. That means, the relief of interest claimed in the complaint, is not to be taken into consideration, while evaluating the complaint for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction.
6. The relief claimed by the petitioner in the present case, so far as the value of service and compensation is concerned, is `19,01,030/- only, or less than `20.00 lacs. Therefore, the learned District Forum was not justified in holding the view that it lacked pecuniary jurisdiction. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed, impugned order set aside and it is ordered that the learned District Forum shall decide the complaint on merits, if the complainant to whom the complaint has already been returned, re- submits the same, within thirty days from the date of this order.
Page 4 of 5 Satish Chander Gaktu Versus IFFCO TOKIO Gen. Insurance Co. Ltd.
(Revision Petition No.58/2014) ___________________________________________________________________
7. Parties are directed to appear before the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla, on 20.04.2015.
8. A copy of the order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Justice Surjit Singh) President (Prem Chauhan) Member (Vijay Pal Khachi) Member March 10, 2015.
*dinesh* Page 5 of 5