The Ld. Advocate for the complainant files a petition praying for extension of the interim order of the injunction. No step is taken by the O.P. Today is fixed for passing order in respect of the petition for injunction and the petition for maintainability of the case.

 The record is taken up for passing order. On 22/07/2019 the O.P has filed a petition stating that the complaint is not maintainable as the same is hopelessly barred by pecuniary jurisdiction and that the instant case has been filed with the subject matter that the TATA LPT 3118 TC52 COWL Truck for an amount of Rs.25,32,000/-which is much more than the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum. He filed a Xerox copy of tax invoice showing the value of the truck in question was Rs.25,32,000/-.

Upon this background the O.P prays for dismissal of the case. In support of his case he mentioned the settled principle of law  in the case of Ambrish Kumar Shukla Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd reported in (2017) 1 CPJ 1 decided by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

The complainant filed W.O against the said petition dated 22/07/2019 stating that the complainant filed this case arising out of the disputed amount of Rs.4,53,128/- and in this case there is no question arises in the invoice amount. It is further stated that the whole invoice amount is not subject matter, so there is no question of that the case is hopelessly barred by pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum. Upon this background the complainant submitted that as per subject matter involved amount is not exceeded upon pecuniary jurisdiction and the case is triable by this Forum.

On perusal of the complaint it appears that the TATA LPT 3118 TC52 COWL Truck was purchased on taking total loan of Rs.2570880/- and a Lawyer notice dated 01/04/2019 stating that the O.P acted illegally possessing  the truck loss an amount of Rs.28,00,000/- with loaded coal was served to the O.P. The complainant also claimed compensation of Rs.9,80,000/- from the O.P. But the Xerox copy of tax invoice submitted by the O.P shows that the value of the subject matter, that is, truck in question was Rs.25,32,000/- and the case has been arisen out of the subject matter and compensation has been claimed at the amount of Rs.9,80,000/-. Therefore, the total value of the subject matter and compensation is Rs.3512000/-. The Central Consumer Protection (2nd amendment), the rules, 2006 is laid down that the value of goods or service and compensation claimed (both inclusive) exceeding 10,00000/- rupees but less than 20,00000/-, fee payable Rs.500/- and Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act provides that the District Forum has jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or service and the compensation, if any, claimed does not exceed Rs.2000000/-. Therefore, the subject matter and compensation for loss due to defect or deficiency in service inclusive does not exceed 2000000/-rupees. In the instant case, the value of the goods and services exceeds more than Rs.2000000/-. The decision of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission reported in (2017) 1 CPJ 1 to the effect that “it is evident from a bare perusal of Section 21, 17 and 11 of the Consumer Protection Act that it’s the value of the goods and service and the compensation, if any, claimed which determines the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum”is applicable in this case.

Under the above facts and circumstances we are of the opinion that this District Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this case and the case in not maintainable before this Forum.

Let the complaint along with the listed documents be returned to the complainant with a direction to file the case to the proper Forum which has pecuniary jurisdiction in the matter. Thus, in view of the above situation the injunction petition cannot be entertained by this Forum. Accordingly, the case is disposed of.

Let a copy of this order be given to the complainant.