Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.62 seconds)M/S. Pyaridevi Chabiraj Steels Pvt. ... vs National Insurance Company Ltd. & 3 Ors. on 28 August, 2020
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. 42,217/- 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.
Ambrish Kumar Shukla & 21 Ors. vs Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. on 19 January, 2016
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.
Section 14 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
1