State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Nirmal Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs National Insurance Company Ltd. on 2 July, 2021
1
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
U.T., CHANDIGARH
Complaint Case No. : 16 of 2021
Date of Institution : 25.05.2021
Date of Decision : 02.07.2021
M/s Nirmal Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd., Baddi, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh
through its Director, Pankaj Khanna.
...Complainant.
Versus
1. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Chandigarh Regional Office, SCO 332-334,
Sector 34A, Chandigarh - 160022 through its Regional Manager.
2. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 4th Floor, Grand Walk Mall, Ferozepur Road,
Ludhiana - 141012 through its Manager.
3. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Near Passport Office, Ranjeet Avenue,
Amritsar - 143001.
4. Protech Insurance Surveyors and Loss Assessors, #1334, Sector 80,
Mohali.
.... Opposite Parties.
BEFORE: JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT
MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER
MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER Present through Video Conferencing:-
Sh. Pankaj Chandgothia, Advocate for the complainant. PER RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER This complaint has been filed by the complainant seeking directions to the opposite parties, to make payment of his claim amount submitted by it towards the loss suffered, on account of incident of flooding which took place in the insured premises. It is the case of the complainant that despite the fact that it had paid premium amount to the tune of Rs.2,43,120/- towards insurance policies bearing no.404400111810000146 and 404400111810000112 valid for the period from 25.03.2019 to 24.03.2020, for getting insured the items i.e. plant and machinery including stocks worth Rs.14 crores and Rs.1.30 crores respectively, kept in the insured premises wherefrom it was running its business, yet, when it submitted the claim for reimbursement for the loss suffered towards the said 2 incident of flooding, the opposite parties repudiated the claim vide letter dated 30.03.2021, Annexure C-10 on flimsy grounds. Hence this complaint.
2. We have heard Counsel for the complainant at the preliminary stage and have gone through the documents on record, very carefully.
3. During preliminary arguments, we put a specific question to Counsel for the complainant to justify, as to how this Commission is vested with pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint; he submitted that since the total claim amount to the tune of Rs.2,28,14,882/- falls above Rs.1 crore and below Rs.10 crore, as such, this Commission is vested with pecuniary jurisdiction. We do not agree with the justification given for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.
4. It is pertinent to mention here that this complaint has been filed under Section 35 read with Section 47(1)(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 2019") which had come into force with effect from 20.07.2020. For ready reference the provisions of Sections 34(1), 47(1)(a)(i) & (ii) 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:
(ii) complaints against unfair contracts, where the value of goods or services paid as consideration does not exceed ten crore rupees;"
"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:" 3
Bare reading of the aforesaid provisions amply makes it 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. Thus, in the present case, if we see the value of the consideration paid i.e. premium paid for taking the Insurance policies in question, it was only Rs.2,43,120/-, which is less than Rs.1 crore.
5. It is significant to mention here that the Parliament, while enacting the Act of 2019 was conscious of the 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.
6. 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.2,43,120/-, which is not above Rs.1,00,00,000/-, this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the present Consumer Complaint and it is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable. Our above view is fully supported by the observation made by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in M/s. Pyaridevi Chabiraj Steels Pvt. Ltd. Versus National Insurance Company Ltd. Consumer Case No. 833 of 2020, decided on 28 August, 2020.
7. During the course of arguments, Counsel for the complainant, while referring to Consent Letter dated 19.11.2019, Annexure C-5, has submitted that this consent letter is an unfair contract and as such, attracts the jurisdiction of this Commission under Section 47(1)(a)(ii) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019. In our considered opinion, this Consent Letter dated 19.11.2019, Annexure C-5 cannot, in any way, said to be a contract even, what to speak of unfair contract when looking at the definition of "unfair 4 contract" as provided in Section 2(46) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which reads thus:-
"unfair contract" means a contract between a manufacturer or trader or service provider on one hand, and a consumer on the other, having such terms which cause significant change in the rights of such consumer, including the following namely;-"
Bare perusal of the Consent Letter dated 19.11.2019, Annexure C-5 transpires that it is executed only by the complainant and not by the service provider i.e. the Insurance Company and is a one sided document, therefore, the provisions of Section 47(1)(a)(ii) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 cannot be attracted to say that it is an unfair contract. Therefore, the submission made by the Counsel for the complainant being not tenable stands rejected.
8. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed in limine for want of jurisdiction as detailed above.
9. However, liberty is granted to the complainant to file the complaint before the appropriate Fora and the period spent before this Commission shall be exempted for the purpose of limitation.
10. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
11. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion. Pronounced 02.07.2021 [RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI] PRESIDENT (PADMA PANDEY) MEMBER (RAJESH K. ARYA) MEMBER Ad 5 STATE COMMISSION (Complaint Case No.16 of 2021) Present through Video Conferencing:
Sh. Pankaj Chandgothia, Advocate for the complainant. Dated: 02.07.2021 ORDER Vide our detailed order of even date, recorded separately, this complaint has been dismissed in limine for want of jurisdiction. However, liberty has been granted to the complainant to file the complaint before the appropriate Fora.
(RAJESH K. ARYA) (RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI) (PADMA PANDEY)
MEMBER PRESIDENT MEMBER
Ad