CC/20/2018

Order No. 9

Today is fixed for hearing the petition of the opposite party dated 22/01/2019. The OP Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank is hereby represented through Ld. Advocate. None appears on behalf of the complainant at the time of call. The petition dated 22/01/2019 is taken up for hearing. Heard Ld. Advocate. The sum and substance of the petition relates to pecuniary jurisdiction point. It is contended in the petition that the total claim of compensation prayed by the complainant is altogether a sum of Rs. 2,00,50,000/- which is not tenable in the eye of law to be entertained in a consumer complaint case pending before the State Commission. And for that reason, the opposite party has wanted the dismissal of the case. Ld. Advocate of the OP at the time of hearing cites some judicial decisions where in a case the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission between Ambarish Kr. Shukla and Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. in CC/97/2016 held that interest has to be added for computing the pecuniary jurisdiction. And in view of the provisions contained in section 21, 17 and 11 of the CP Act, 1986 the amount of the interest which can be paid as compensation must necessarily be taken into account for determining pecuniary jurisdiction. After hearing Ld. Advocate of the OP and after going through the contents of the consumer complaint most particularly the prayer portion, it appears that the complainant has claimed rupees one crore on account of the depriving the complainant to get Government subsidy, Rs. 50,000,00/- for business loss, compensation for damage and anxiety Rs. 50,000,00/- and litigation cost Rs, 50,000. So, the entire claim amount as per consumer complaint relates to rupees two crore and fifty thousand whereas as per provision of the Consumer Protection Act, State Commission, is empowered to deal with the consumer complaint cases up to Rs. 1,00,000,00 (one crore) as claim amount. So, in apparent this Commission lacks the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this consumer complaint and this Commission has no authority to adjudicate the matter in dispute in the eye of law. The consumer complainant also does not challenge the contention of the Op over the pecuniary jurisdiction point. So, in our view, the consumer complaint which was provisionally admitted by this Commission, now, appears to us not to deal with this case due to lack of pecuniary jurisdiction.

            Accordingly, the petition of the OP dated 22/1/2019 is hereby allowed on merit. The consumer complaint is hereby returned to the complainant by granting a liberty to the complainant to file the case before the appropriate authority having territorial and the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain. Thus, the complaint case is hereby disposed of.