KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

I.A. Nos. 459/2020 & 467/2020 in C.C. No. 138/2015

ORDER DATED: 16.12.2020

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN              : PRESIDENT

SRI.T.S.P. MOOSATH                                                       : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI.RANJIT. R                                                                   : MEMBER

SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A                                              : MEMBER

SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN                                        : MEMBER

COMPLAINANT:

Joshwa V. Samuel, Vellaramkuzhiyil House, Vandamattom, Pin-685 582, Thodupuzha Taluk, Idukki.

                             (By Adv. K.S. Cyriac)

                                                Vs.

OPPOSITE PARTIES:

1. HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd., Registered Office Raman House, H.T. Parekh Marg, Mumbai-400 020.

2. HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd, K.G. Oxford Business Centre, Cochin, Ernakulam.

(By Adv. Sreevaraham G. Satheesh for OPs 1 & 2)

3. HDFC Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd., Ravipuram Junction, M.G. Road, Ernakulam.

   (By Adv. S. Reghukumar)

ORDER

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN: PRESIDENT

These petitions are filed by the opposite parties in the complaint raising the question of maintainability of the complaint itself, before us.  This complaint was originally filed claiming an amount of Rs. 1 Crore as compensation from the opposite parties.  Subsequently I.A 772/2019 was filed by the complainant to amend the complaint by enhancing his claim for compensation to Rs. 10 Crores.  As per order dated 21.10.2020 the said petition was allowed and the amendment was carried out enhancing the amount claimed as compensation to Rs. 10 Crores.  It is at the above stage that the present petitions have been filed. 

2.  According to the respective counsel, Adv. S. Reghukumar and Adv. Sreevaraham G. Satheesh the complaint itself was filed under Sec. 17 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the 1986 Act).  The petition for amendment of the complaint was filed by the complainant under Sec. 13(4) of the said Act.  Since the amendment made relates back to the date of filing of the complaint, in view of the dictum in “T.K. Sreedharan Vs. P.S. Job (1968 KLT 479)”, this Commission would not have jurisdiction to try the complaint.  This is because the amendment takes the claim in the complaint out of the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission.  Reliance is also placed on the order of the National Commission in “Diary No. 13929-13932/NCDRC/2020 dated 12.10.2020” clarifying that petitions filed under the 1986 Act would continue to be governed by the provisions of the said enactment until they are finally disposed of.  Therefore, in accordance with the provisions thereof, this complaint would have to be returned to the complainant for being presented before the proper authority having jurisdiction in the matter.  Adv. G. Satheesh has also put forward similar contentions. 

3.  The counsel for the petitioner places reliance on Sec. 107 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 (hereinafter referred to as the 2019 Act) to contend that notwithstanding the repeal of the earlier Act, anything done or any action taken or purported to have been taken under the repealed Act shall so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act shall be deemed to have been done or taken under the provisions of this Act. 

4.  Heard.  It is trite that an amendment relates back to the date of the complaint.  In the present case, the complaint is filed under the 1986 Act.  The petition to amend the same also has been filed under the 1986 Act.  When the said amendment was allowed, enhancing the amount claimed as compensation by the complainant to Rs. 10 Crores the subject matter exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission under the repealed Act.  Consequently it has become necessary to return the complaint to the complainant for being presented before the appropriate Forum. Sec. 109 cannot supply jurisdiction to this Commission to try a matter that it could not try under the earlier enactment.  Sec. 107 only seeks to legalize anything done or any action taken or purported to have been done or taken under the earlier Act, in so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of the 2019 Act.  In this case, nothing done under the earlier Act is being sought to be legalized.

For the foregoing reasons this petition is allowed.  The office shall return this complaint to the complainant to be presented before the Appropriate Authority having jurisdiction to try the same. 

JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN  : PRESIDENT

                   T.S.P. MOOSATH   : JUDICIAL MEMBER

RANJIT. R                : MEMBER

                                                                        BEENA KUMARY. A         : MEMBER

K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN  : MEMBER

jb