ORDER

(Passed on – 13^th  July, 2018)

As per Hon’ble President. Mr. Shekhar Muley.

1.              This complaint is regarding failure on the part of the Opposite Party (OP) to settle the insurance claim of stolen vehicle. Facts in short are that the truck bearing registered No. MH-40-N-4733 was owned by the complainant and it was insured with the OP for IDV Rs. 19,95,000/-. The policy was valid from 5/9/2011 to 4/9/2012. No policy conditions were supplied to the complainant. During subsistence of the policy, on 7/9/2011 the truck was carrying plastic drums and Purchune from Tarapur to Nagpur. Due to short circuit the truck caught fire near Kondhali Police Station on Amravati road at 26.30 hrs. In that incident the truck was completely gutted in fire before fire brigade could reach on the spot. It was a total loss. The incident was reported to the OP on 8/9/2011. Since the truck was lying on the road side it was creating obstruction to the traffic. Therefore police instructed to remove it from the road. The complainant then telephonically asked the OP to depute a surveyor immediately before shifting. The OP told him that he had to first call on toll free number of the OP and then only his claim would be registered and thereafter a surveyor would be deputed. Meanwhile police conducted spot panchnama. The OP deputed surveyor Vinit Mahajan, who inspected the burnt truck and perused documents and submitted his report to the OP. Then with permission of the OP the truck was shifted to a garage on Kamptee road. The complainant obtained estimate of the truck from M/s Automotive Manufacturer, who gave it to the tune of Rs. 21,15,979/-. He submitted the claim to the OP and asked to depute a surveyor for final survey. The Legal Managers of the OP conducted final survey. There was requisition of some documents from the OP. Since his father was ill and being treated in a hospital he could not comply the requirement immediately. His father died eventually. The OP though aware of these facts, illegally and arbitrarily closed his file as ¨No Claim¨. Thereafter all his efforts to get the claim settled proved unsuccessful. Hence he filed this complaint with prayers to direct the OP to pay him IDV of the truck Rs. 19,95,000/- with 20% interest, compensation Rs. 1 lakh and cost Rs. 25,000/-.

2.                        The OP filed reply. Except admitting the insurance policy of the truck for IDV Rs. 19,95,000/-, all the averments of the complaint are totally denied. The incident of fire, loss of the truck, its estimate, deputation of surveyor, etc all are denied. It is specifically stated that the complainant has made breach of policy condition No. 5 by not taking reasonable steps to safe guard the truck from loss or damage. Further, the incident was not immediately reported to the OP and to police, which amounts to breach of policy condition No.1. Denying that there is any deficiency in service on its part, it is submitted to dismiss the complaint.

3.                        Heard Ld counsels for both the parties. Perused documents, rejoinder and notes of argument. We record our findings for the reasons given below.

          FINDINGS AND REASONS

4.                        The complainant is seeking IDV of the damaged truck, which is admittedly Rs. 19,95,000/-. Apart from that, he is seeking compensation of Rs. 1 lakh for the mental and physical harassment he allegedly suffered and cost of litigation Rs. 25,000/-. Thus total monetary reliefs claimed by him is more than Rs. 20 Lakh. Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act provides that the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or service and the compensation, if any, claimed does not exceed Rs. Twenty lakhs.

5.                        Ld counsel for the complainant has submitted that the forum has pecuniary jurisdiction to decide this complaint. He submits, compensation, cost and interest amount are not to be considered to decide pecuniary jurisdiction. He relied on some judgments on this issue, which are as under.

1. Zujarbhai Y. Katawal V/S Marol Land Developers II (2005) CPJ 631 (Mah)
2. A.H. Kapadia v/s Shah Sejpal Developers I (2005) CPJ 724 (Mah)
3. Shahbad Co-Op Sugar Mills v/s National Insurance Co. II (2003) CPJ 81 (NC)
4. St. of Haryana v/s The General Manager, United India Insurance Co. Consumer Complaint No. 77 of 2013 decided on 20/2/2014 ( Chandigarh)

We have gone through these judgments. In the first two cases decided by the Maharashtra State Commission, it is held that benefits claimed by way of interest or compensation cannot be added for purpose of determination of valuation of subject matter of complaint. In later two cases, the interest on the amount claimed was calculated for determining pecuniary jurisdiction. That was not approved holding that interest component cannot be added to the amount claimed to decide pecuniary jurisdiction. So far as cases at serial No. 3 and 4 are concerned, we are in respectful agreement with the ratio that interest cannot be added to the amount claimed for purpose of determination of pecuniary jurisdiction. First two cases, Zujarbhai Y. Katawal and A.H. Kapadia, no doubt, support the contention of the Ld counsel for the complainant. However, those judgments were given in the year 2004 and by some recent judgments of National Commission, those old judgments deemed to have been overruled.

6.                       The issue of pecuniary jurisdiction has been recently decided  by the larger Bench of Hon´ble National Commission in Ambrish Kumar Shukla v/s Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd,  Consumer Case No. 97/2016 decided on 7/10/2016 (NC). In that judgment it is held that in cases where even the part deficiency is to be removed, the full value of the subject matter, whether goods or service will be taken as the value of goods and services for deciding the pecuniary jurisdiction. In a more recent case, Ruhi Seth v/s IREO Grace Real Tech Pvt. Ltd. Consumer Case No. 1464 of 2017 decided on 13/11/2017 (NC) it is clearly held that value of the complaint has to be value of amount and compensation claimed. In this case the IDV of the truck and compensation claimed ( Rs.19,95,000/- + Rs. 1,00,000/-) themselves are more than pecuniary jurisdiction of the forum. Section 

 7.             Therefore in this view of the matter, it is not necessary to go into the factual aspect of the dispute. The complaint is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the forum and therefore cannot be entertained by this forum. The complainant may approach competent forum to file the complaint subject to limitation.

                             Hence, the following order.

          ORDER

1. The forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, hence the complaint along with documents be returned to the complainant.
2. Office to retain one set of the complaint.