RESERVED
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW
COMPLAINT NO. 14 OF 2021
- Nitu,W/o Late Shri Sandeep Kumar
R/o 660 Village Basi
District Bagpat, U.P.
- Master Divyansh Nain
S/o Late Shri Sandeep Kumar
R/o 660 Village Basi, District Bagpat, U.P.
- Km. Anaya, D/o Late Shri Sandeep Kumar
R/o 660 Village Basi
District Bagpat, U.P.
Versus
- ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
-
Shahnajaf Road, Hazratganj
Through Branch Manager
- ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
Unit No. 1A& 2A
RahejaTipco Plaza
Rani Sathi Marg, Malad (East)
-
- ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
Regd. Office 1089
Appaashab Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi
-
....Opposite Parties
BEFORE:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR, PRESIDENT
HON’BLE MR. VIKAS SAXENA, MEMBER
For the Complainant : Sri Umesh Kumar Srivastava, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party : Miss Puja Tripathi holding brief of Sri Manu
Dixit, Advocate.
Dated : 29-03-2023
JUDGMENT
PER MR. VIKAS SAXENA, MEMBER
This complaint has been filed with the averments that the husband of the complainant Shri Sandeep Kumar had taken policy number
:2:
72012741 from the opposite party ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited with the sum assured Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Only). The amount of premium fixed for the aforesaid policy was Rs.4, 399/-per month which was to be deposited every month for the 5 years. In all 6 premium of Rs.4399/-were deposited from the month of April, 2020 till September 2020 but unfortunately the policy holder could not deposit the premium thereafter. After the death of policy holder the complainant, his wife has claimed reliefs of some assured Rs.1 crore, damages Rs.5 lakh for physical and mental harassment and Rs.30000 for costs of the case.
. In the instant case a preliminary point arises, though not raised by the opposite party, is as to whether this Consumer Complaint is maintainable before this State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission because the complainant has sought reliefs in all more than Rs. One Crore but the consideration paid for hiring the services of insurance could be seen for determining the jurisdiction of this Commission as provided under Section 47 (1) (a) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act of 2019.
47. (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the State Commission shall have jurisdiction—
(a) to entertain—
(i) complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as
consideration, exceeds Rs.one crore, but does not exceed Rs.tencrore:
Provided that where the Central Government deems it necessary so to do, it may prescribe such other value, as it deems fit;
Exercising the powers provided in the above mentioned proviso of Section 4(1) of the Consumer Protection Act of 2019 the State - Government has prescribed the value of the goods and services paid as consideration exceeding Rs.50 lakh but less than Rs 3 crores for jurisdiction of this State Commission. In this manner, the present section 47(1) of the said act provides the aforesaid ‘consideration paid for services’ and not the value of the goods or value of services or the value of relief claimed by the complainant, would be the factor for deciding the jurisdiction of the State Commission.
In the present case before us the complainant has admitted to have paid Rs.4399 x 6 = Rs.26,394/- and promised to pay in future as
:3:
premium of the policy for further four and half years to be paid Rs.4399 x 54 = Rs.2,37,566/-. In this way total Rs.2,63,940/- as premium i.e. consideration for services to be rendered by the insurance company by way of life cover of the insured. The statute has provided value of the consideration paid for goods or services as main criteria for deciding the jurisdiction of a particular Consumer Commission which in the present case does not exceeds Rs.50 lacs and less than Rs.3 crore, as provided by the State Government for pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission.
Similar question arose before The Honorable National Commission in the matter LIGARE AVIATION LIMITEDversusORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED reported in IV (2021) CPJ 308 (NC) the Honourable National Commission while deciding the maintainability of that complaint for which the value of the services paid as consideration, was the total premium paid, is Rs. 31,55,069.00/- considered that the Hon’ble Commission has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the Consumer complaint as the value of the goods or services paid as consideration exceeds Rs. 10,00,00,000 (Rs. Ten Crores Only) therefore it does not have the jurisdiction. Honorable Commission held that: —
“6. It is manifestly clear that since the value of the service paid as consideration does not exceed Rs. 10 crore, this complaint does not come within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission as provided for in Section 58(1)(a)(i) of the Act 2019.The complaint is dismissed as not maintainable.”
The Honourable Commission in another case M/S. Pyaridevi Chabiraj Steels...vs... National Insurance Company Ltd. &orsdecided on 28 August, 2020 considered the question of Jurisdiction on the basis of value paid as consideration. In this case on 2nd June, 2016 the Complainant had taken Insurance Coverage from National Insurance Company Limited, Kolkata, West Bengal under its Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy initially for a total sum of Rs.28,00,20,000/- (Rs. Twenty eight crores and twenty thousand only) by paying a premium of Rs.3,20,525/- (Rs. Three lac twenty thousand five hundred and twenty five only) only. The Complainant further took an additional security coverage of Rs.13, 00, 00,000/- (Rs. Thirteen crores only) on 25th August,
:4:
2020 by paying a premium of Rs.1, 23,037/- (Rs. One lac twenty three thousand and thirty seven only).
The Honourable Commission held in paragraph 10 of the judgement that "it is amply clear that for determining 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. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that as the value of consideration paid by the Complainant is only Rs.4,43,562/- (Rs. Four lac forty three thousand five hundred and sixty two only), which is not above Rs.10,00, 00,000/- (Rs. Ten crore), the National Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the present Consumer Complaint and it is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable"
Keeping in view the aforesaid judgements of Honorable NCDRC, New Delhi, we also observe and maintain that the value paid as consideration i.e. premium of the insurance policy which include paid premiums as well as remaining premiums which were agreed to be paid, in total are less than Rs. 50 lakh and the complaint does not come within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this State Commission as provided by the State Government under the relevant rules, hence the complaint is not maintainable in this Commission and liable to be dismissed.
Order
The complaint is dismissed as not maintainable within pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission with this direction that the complainant shall be at liberty to file the complaint before the District Consumer Forum having territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction in respect to the facts in dispute in between the parties with limitation of filing the complaint to be taken from the date the complaint was filed before the District Consumer Commission.
Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules.
The Stenographer is requested to upload this order on the website of this Commission at the earliest.
(JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR) ( VIKAS SAXENA )
PRESIDENT MEMBER
Pnt.
