Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/20/855

LALARAM PRAJAPATI - Complainant(s)

Versus

ALLAHABAD BANK - Opp.Party(s)

SH.MANISH NEMA

09 Feb 2021

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

                                  FIRST APPEAL NO. 855 OF 2020

(Arising out of order dated 05.12.2020 passed in C.C.No.531/2020 by District Commission, Gwalior)

 

LALARAM PRAJAPATI.                                                                                   …          APPELLANT

 

Versus

                 

MANAGER, ALLAHABAD BANK & ORS.                                                         …         RESPONDENTS.                                      

             

BEFORE:

 

                  HON’BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK                          :      PRESIDING MEMBER  

                  HON’BLE SHRI S. S. BANSAL                                      :      MEMBER                                   

 

                                      O R D E R

 

09.02.2021

 

          Shri Manish Nema, learned counsel for the appellant.

                                   

As per Dr. Monika Malik :                       

            Heard.

           This appeal by the complainant/appellant is directed against the order dated 05.12.2020 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gwalior (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.531/2020 whereby the District Commission has dismissed the complaint holding it to be not maintainable before it on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction and has directed the complainant/appellant to approach the State Commission.

2.                     Learned counsel for appellant submits that in this matter the premium amount paid in order to obtain the insurance policy is Rs.32,450 but the learned District Commission dismissed the complaint holding that the insured amount under the policy exceeds Rupees 1 Crore, therefore the complaint is not maintainable before the District Commission. He prayed for setting aside the impugned order.

 

-2-

3.                     Section 34 (1) and Section 47 (1) (a) (i) which are relevant for deciding issue involved in the matter are reproduced hereunder:

                      Section 34 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 provides:

(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.

 

Section 47 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 provides:

 

1. Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the State Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain

1. complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration exceeds rupees one crore, but does not exceed rupees ten crore.

 

Bare perusal of the aforesaid sections makes it apparently clear that it is the value of the goods or services paid as consideration and not the relief claimed or the value of goods or services purchased, which decides the pecuniary jurisdiction of a particular case.

4.                     In the present case, on going through the impugned order and the documents available on record, we find that there is no dispute in the fact that value of goods or services, paid as consideration does not exceed Rs.1 crore and is much below the same.

5.                     The National Commission in Consumer Case No. 833 OF 2020 M/S Pyaridevi Chabiraj Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs National Insurance Company Limited & Ors. has held in paragraph 10 of the order as under

            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.

 

-3-

6.                     In the wake of the above discussion, we are of a considered opinion that since the value paid as consideration, by the complainant/appellant is only Rs.32,450- which is not above rupees 1 crore, this complaint is maintainable before the District Commission.  The District Commission has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this matter under the provision of Section 34 1 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.  Therefore, the case is remanded back to the District Commission.

7.                     The appellant/complainant is directed to appear before the District Commission on 10.03.2021.

8.                     The District Commission is directed to proceed further in the matter in accordance with law after issuing notices to the opposite parties.

9.                     With the aforesaid observations and directions, the impugned order is set-aside.  The appeal stands allowed, with no order as to costs.

 

                (Dr. Monika Malik)                               (S. S. Bansal) 

                Presiding Member                                    Member