Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.54 seconds)
Lt. Col. Brijesh Kumar Singh (Retd.) vs Suncity Projects Private Limited & 4 ... on 15 June, 2023
cites
Consumer Protection Act, 2019
Ambrish Kumar Shukla & 21 Ors. vs Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. on 26 April, 2023
"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.
Section 21 in Consumer Protection Act, 2019 [Entire Act]
M/S. Pyaridevi Chabiraj Steels Pvt. ... vs National Insurance Company Ltd. & 3 Ors. on 28 August, 2020
12. However, after the new Act has come into force, the determiner of the pecuniary jurisdiction has changed. Instead of value of the goods or services, it is the paid amount as consideration which is the factor to decide the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Commission. Even where the Complaints are against unfair trade practice, it is the paid consideration amount which determines the pecuniary jurisdiction of a Commission. The issue relating to determination of the pecuniary jurisdiction under the new Act had come up for consideration before this Commission the case of Pyaridevi Chabiraj Steels Pvt. Ltd. (supra). In that case, M/s Pyaridevi Chabiraj Steels Pvt. Ltd. filed a Complaint before this Commission against the Insurance Company seeking following reliefs:
1