State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ms Paragon Industries Viramgam Co Op vs New India Ass Co Ltd on 4 February, 2022
Date of filing: 28/12/2020
Date of disposal: 04/02/2022
Days of disposal: 403 Days.
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
GUJARAT STATE, AHMEDABAD
COURT NO: 04
C.M.A. No. 438 of 2020
M/s. Paragon Industries,
Viramgam Co-op Industrial Estate,
Opp. Balapir Dargah, Viramgam,
Ahmedabad. ...Applicant.
V/s
New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
4th Floor, Popular House,
Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. ...Respondent.
==============================================================
BEFORE: Dr. J.G. Mecwan, Presiding Member.
APPEARANCE: Mr. V.M. Pancholi, L.A. for the applicant.
Mr. Rituraaj Meena, L.A. for the respondent.
============================================================== ORDER BELOW EXH. 09 ORAL ORDER: (By Dr. J.G. Mecwan, Presiding Member)
1. Today when the matter is come up for hearing, I have heard Mr. V.M. Pancholi, Ld. Adv. for the applicant through video conferencing.
2. This Commission has received withdrawal pursis of Mr. V.M. Pancholi, Ld. Adv. for the applicant. In the pursis it has been stated that, "સદર કામમા એડવોકે ટ તરફે આપ ના. કોટટ ને નમ્ર અરજ છે કે , સદર કામમા હાલની ફરરયાદ સામેવાળાની સેવા માાં ખામી તથા ગે રવ્યાજબી વેપાર પ્રથા ના કારણે દાખલ કરે લ છે . સદર ફરરયાદ માાં માાંગવામાાં આવેલ દાદ રૂપપયા એક કરોડ કરતા વધારે હોઈ ફરરયાદ નામદાર સ્ટે ટ કપમશન સમક્ષ દાખલ કરે લ. નામદાર નેશનલ કપમશને ફરરયાદ નઁ. ૮૩૩/૨૦૨૦ ના કામે આપેલ ચુકાદા મુજબ ફરરયાદમાાં માાંગવામાાં આવેલ દાદ ની રકમ હકુ મત માટે જરૂરી નથી પરાં ત,ુ અવેજ ની રકમ ની ગણતરીથી નાણાકીય હકુ મત નક્કી કરવાની રહેશે.
ઉપરોક્ત સાંજોગોમાાં ફરરયાદી હાલની ફરરયાદના ગુણદોષમાાં ઉતયાટ વગર યોગ્ય હકુ મત ધરાવતી ગ્રાહક અદાલતમાાં સામાવાળા પવરુધ્ધ યોગ્ય કાયવાટહી કરવાનો હક્ક અબાધીત રાખી પરત ખેંચવા માાંગે છે . ફરરયાદીની હાલની ફરરયાદ ઉપર મુજબના અવલોકન સાથે દફ્તરે કરવા નમ્ર અરજ છે તથા ફરરયાદીએ ભરે લ કોટટ ફીની રકમ પરત ચ ૂકવવા નમ્ર અરજ છે ."
3. Heard ld. advocate Mr. V. M. Pancholi, for the applicant. Ld. Advocate for the applicant has sought permission to withdraw the present matter.
4. This Commission has come across the judgment passed by Hon'ble National Commission in Complaint no. 833 of 2020 in the case of M/s. Pyaridevi Chabiraj Steels Pvt. Ltd. vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. wherein, Hon'ble National Commission has held as under:
Page 1 of 3R.I. DESAI CMA/438/2020 "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 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 Page 2 of 3 R.I. DESAI CMA/438/2020
11. 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.4,43,562/- (Rupees four lac forty three thousand five hundred and sixty two only), which is not above Rs.10,00,00,000/- (Rupees Ten crore), the National Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the present Consumer Complaint and it is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable."
5. Read withdraw pursis, perused the record of the case. I have also gone through the record of the case and verify the contents of the withdraw pursis. It appears that withdraw pursis is genuine. Vakalatpatra of ld. Adv. Mr. V.M. Pancholi is also on record and as per Vakalatpatra learned Advocate is authorized to withdraw the case on hand.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, contents of the withdraw pursis, contents of the memo of complaint, ratio laid down in above referred judgment and in the interest of justice following order is passed.
ORDER
1. The C.M.A. no. 438/2020 is disposed of as withdrawn.
2. The complainant is permitted to file appropriate proceeding before the appropriate Commission according to law. It goes without saying that time spent 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 C.M.A. No. 438/2020 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. Copy of this order to be provided free of costs to the parties.
Pronounced in the open Court today on 4th February, 2022.
[Dr. J.G. Mecwan]
Presiding Member
Page 3 of 3
R.I. DESAI CMA/438/2020