19.03.2024

ORDER ON ADMISSION

By Sri Ravishankar, Judicial Member

The Revision Petitioner /complainant has preferred this Revision Petition being aggrieved by the Order dt.20.12.2023 passed in CC.No.167/2023 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mandya which dismissed the complaint.

2.        The Revision Petitioner submits that they have filed a complaint before the District Commission alleging unfair trade practice and sought for refund of Rs.49,43,450/- which was paid towards the purchase of the materials/machineries.  The District Commission after trial had dismissed the complaint holding that they have no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the transaction was beyond Rs.50 lakhs.  The Order passed by the District Commission is not in accordance with Law.  The consideration amount paid towards purchase of the machinery is Rs.49,43,450/-.  At the time of claiming refund of the said amount, they also claimed for compensation to the tune of Rs.60 lakhs totally amounting to Rs.1,09,53,450/- which include the costs of the purchase.  The District Commission without considering the said fact had calculated by its own assumption and hold that the District Commission has no pecuniary jurisdiction and dismissed the complaint.  The Order passed by the District Commission is not in accordance with Law, hence, prayed to set aside the Order passed by the District Commission.

3.        On perusal of the petition along with documents, we noticed that it is an admitted fact that the complainant has purchased some machineries from the Opposite Party by paying an amount of Rs.49,43,450/-.  The District Commission after trial had dismissed the matter with respect to the pecuniary jurisdiction at the stage of admission itself holding that the claim is beyond Rs.50 lakhs.  The reasons assigned by the District Commission are not in accordance with Law.  At the time of considering the pecuniary jurisdiction, the District Commission has to look after the amount paid towards the purchase of machinery only not the compensation claimed.  In this regard, it is appropriate to refer the Order dt.28.08.2020 passed in Consumer Case No.833/2022 of Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the matter between M/s Pyaridevi Chabiraj Steels Pvt. Ltd., v/s National Insurance Company Ltd., & 3 others wherein it is held as under;

 “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.  Therefore, we are of the view that the provision of Section 58(1)(a)(i) of the Act of 2019 are very clear and does not call for any two interpretations”.

The District Commission has not applied its judicious mind while considering the pecuniary jurisdiction as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, hence, it requires to be set aside.  Accordingly, direction is given to the District Commission to restore the matter in its original number and adjudicate the case on merits afresh.  Hence, the following;

ORDER

The Revision Petition is allowed.

The District Commission is directed to restore the matter in its original number and adjudicate the case on merits afresh in accordance with Law. 

           Sd/-

      (Ravishankar)       

      Judicial Member