F.A.353 OF  2018 &

                                                      F.A.270 OF 2018                     

                       Heard the learned counsel for  both the sides.

2.              This appeal is  filed  U/S-15 of erstwhile  Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to  with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.

3.               The case of the complainant, in nutshell is that the complainant has purchased  a truck from OP No.3 for Rs.26,27,873.36 and for that he has obtained loan from OP No.5 & 7 and it was also insured  with OP No.4. During operation of the vehicle the hydraulic  Zac of the vehicle was collapsed and the vehicle became inoperative, for which  claim was made. The surveyor was deputed. But  the claim was repudiated challenging repudiation complaint  was filed.

4.        The OP No.3 & 6 were set-exparte.

5.      OP No.1 & 2 appeared and submitted that surveyor submitted a report  but  found that due to mishandling of the vehicle by  complainant the vehicle was damaged. So, there is no any warranty coverage applicable to the complainant for which no deficiency of service is committed by the OP.  The other Ops took plea that the vehicle was used for commercial purpose, for which the complainant is not entitled to any relief as asked for.

6.           After hearing, learned District Forum has passed the following order:-

                        Xxxxxxxxx   xxxxxxx       xxxxxxxxxx

    “ The vehicle had been insured just 10 days prior to the accident. So, the deduction of depreciation is not justified in this case. In the said situation the loss assessed by the surveyor of the insurance company had been grossly under valued. As the vehicle  could have been repaired, the claim should be settled for an amount of Rs.16,25,793/-. Hence the complain filed by the complainant is allowed on contest against OP No.1,2,4,5 & 7 and exparte against OP No.3 and 6. Accordingly, the OP No.4, the Insurance Company is directed to pay  Rs.16,25,793/- alongwith interest  @ 8 % per annum from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 01.08.2017 till the date of payment to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt the copy of this order.

       The OP No.3, the dealer of the vehicle should co-operate the complainant and to repair the vehicle as soon as possible without demanding any detain charge of the vehicle. It is claimed by the complainant against Op No.5 that  he should not take any coercive action against the complainant for which an interim order was passed by us on 21.08.2017 against Op No.5. The said order is hereby vacated. But it is alleged by the complainant that the OP No.5 being the financer of the vehicle demanded 48 % interest per annum on the loan amount. In reply the Op No.5 reisted the allegation. But Ext.14 is a letter given by Op No.5 to the complainant and to his wife wherein it is stated that as per agreement the loan should be repaid with 48 % annum interest in 61 installments. Though the financer is at liberty to collect his installment amounts from the complainant but in the above circumstances he is directed not to take any coercive action against the complainant till the final repairmen of the vehicle as the OP No.5 is not coming to the Forum in clean hands.

 The OP No.1,2,3 and 4 are jointly and severally directed to co-operate the complainant till full repairmen of the vehicle  as the vehicle is under the period of warrantee.”

7.             Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum has  committed error by not considering the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum under the Act  although  the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum was Rs.20,00,000/- by then  and the vehicle was purchased at Rs.26,27,873.36 paise.  Learned counsel for the appellant further  submitted that learned District Forum ought to have considered other aspects so as to defeat  the case of the complainant. He submits to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned order.

8.      Learned counsel for the respondent  submitted that the plea of the pecuniary jurisdiction was not  raised at any point of time. But the at the same time the vehicle was purchased at above price.  However, he supports the impugned order.

9.         Considered the submission of learned counsel for respective parties,, perused the DFR and impugned order.

10.              It  is clear from the complaint and the written version that the vehicle was purchased from OP on payment of  Rs.26,27,873.36. Under the provisions of the Act the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum was Rs.20,00,000/- under the Act at the time of filing the complaint.  Thus,  prima-facie learned District Forum lacks jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. When the complaint is not maintainable, the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum is not sustainable in law. Therefore, without going further, this Commission hereby set-aside the impugned order and it is set-aside.

                      The appeal is thus allowed  accordingly. No cost.                       

                    Free  copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet  or webtsite of this  Commission to treat same as if  copy of order received from this Commission.

                      DFR be sent back forthwith.