This consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party. It is stated by the learned counsel for the complainant that the complainant owns an Audi Vehicle and the vehicle was insured with the opposite party. During the currency of the policy the alloy wheels were damaged due to running of the vehicle on rough roads. The insurance company had allowed the repairs of the vehicle, however, the complainant wanted to have the repairs from an authorised dealer of Audi. A complaint was filed before the District Forum being complaint no. 58 of 2017 and the matter was proceeding before the District Forum. Since the pleadings were complete, the matter was listed for final hearing. However, the District Forum dismissed the complaint on account of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction and liberty was granted to the complainant to file a consumer complaint before an appropriate forum. Consequently, this present complaint has been filed claiming jurisdiction of this Commission because the total value of the Audi car was Rs.1.20 Crores.

2.     It is seen from the complaint that the total amount of Rs.3,14,026/- has been claimed for repair of the car. It is stated by the learned counsel for the complainant that the vehicle was purchased on 4^th May 2015, whereas the alloy wheels got damaged on 17^th November 2016 and this was in the second year of the insurance.

3.     For the pecuniary jurisdiction, the value of the good or service is to be seen along with demanded compensation. As the value of the car has nothing to do with the repair charges as the service of repairs is to be provided by the repairer / service provider. A service is to be valued in terms of its consideration for that service and the value of service of repairs is only Rs.3.14 lakh. When the prayer is in respect of some service, the value of service is to be considered as per section 21 ( a) ( i) and 11 ( 1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and not the value of the good for which service is required.

4.     From the above examination, it is clear that in the present case,  the service involved is only for repair and its value is Rs.3.14 lakh which clearly falls within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum. The District Forum has already proceeded with the complaint and the matter was at final hearing stage, therefore, the complaint should be decided by the District Forum on merits.

5.     Based on the above discussion, the present complaint is dismissed as not maintainable due to lack of pecuniary jurisdiction with this Commission. To save time and for early disposal of the complaint, the order of the District Forum dated 23.07.2018 is set aside and the District Forum is directed to restore the complaint at its original number and hear the matter and decide the case on merits.

6.     Parties to appear before the District Forum on 8^th July 2019.