Ambrish Kumar Shukla & 21 Ors. vs Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. on 19 January, 2016
15. The main contention of the Appellant/Opposite Party is that the
District Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It is
submitted that when the total cost of the vehicle was Rs.19,92,606/-
another sum of Rs.3 lakhs was spent for body building and other
accessories. Therefore, the total cost of the property that is subject
matter of the complaint is more than Rs.22 lakhs. As the law was then
prevailing and in view of the provisions of the 1986 Act, the District
Forum has got no jurisdiction if the value of the goods and services and
compensation, if any claimed do not exceed more than Rs.20 lakhs.
Since the Complainant claim that the value of.the goods is more than
Rs.20 lakhs, the District Forum ought not to have entertained the
complaint and even though this contention was specifically raised by the
Appellant/Opposite Party in the written version, the same has not
properly adjudicated. There is no quarrel with the legal proposition that
for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of the different hierarchies
constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, as per the decision of
the Ambrish Kumar Shukla && 21 Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure
Put.Ltd., reported in (2017) 1 CPJ 1 (NC), what is required to be seen
is the total value of the
goods and services and the compensation, if any
claimed, but not the cost of the deficiency that is sought to be replaced.
In other words, we have to see the total value of the property for
determining jurisdiction. In the instant case, as already stated, the cost
of the
property that is subject matter of the complaint is more than Rs.22
lakhs over which the District Forum has admittedly no jurisdiction
entertain. In spite of that
a'legation being raised, the District Forum went
on to award
compensation which cannot be sustained. In view of the
foregoing discussion and upon reappraisal of the entire oral and
documentary evidence on record, we find ourselves to be not able to
agree to the findings of the District Forum and therefore the same are
liable to be set aside.