STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

BIHAR, PATNA

(Appeal No.117 of 2022)

M/s. G1att Solutions Pvt. Ltd., having its registered office at 76, Pandit Purushottam Roy street, 3^rd Floor, Kolkata (West Bengal)- 700007, having its Solar Power Plant Unit at Village Dariyapur, P.O. Mahanandpur, P.S- Akbarpur, District Nawada through its Authorised Representative namely sri Sant Prasad, Aged about 46 years, son of Dudhnath Tiwari, Resident of Babura House, Baldev Sahai Road, Kadamkuan, P.S- Kadamkuan, District- Patna.                                                                                                                                                                                            …..                 Appellant/Complainant

VERSUS

1. M/s. TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. through its General Manager having its office at 15^th Floor, Tower ‘A’ Peninsula Business Park Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Off Senapati Bapat Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400013 (Maharashtra)
2. The General Manager, TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd., 15^th Floor, Tower ‘A’ Peninsula Business Park Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Off Senapati Bapat Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 (Maharashtra).
3. The Manager, Commercial Claims East, TATA AIG General Insurance Ltd., Constantia Office Complex, 2^nd Floor, 11, Dr. U.N Brahmachari Street, Kolkata- 700017 (West Bengal)
4. The Director, Proclaim Insurance Surveyors and Loss Assessors Pvt. Ltd., 402, 4^th Floor Geetanjali Palace, Near Basudewa Complex, Jarnal Road, Patna- 800001                                                                                                                                .…     Respondent/opposite parties
5.  

Counsel for the Appellant- Mr. Lokesh Kumar, Advocate   

BEFORE:

                               Miss Gita Verma, Judicial Member,                                                                                                                                                            

                             Mr. Raj Kumar Pandey, Member

ORDER

Dated:17.03.2023

Per:Raj Kumar Pandey, Member

This appeal has been filed by the appellant M/s. G1att Solutions Pvt. Ltd. against the order dated 17.08.2022 passed by learned District Consumer disputes Redressal Commission, Nawada (herein after refer to as District Commission) in complaint case No. 160 of 2022 whereby and whereunder the complaint case filed by the appellant/complainant was dismissed for want of pecuniary jurisdiction. The learned District Commission in its order has stated that the complainant has bought the complaint case for the compensation of rupees 1,54,71,000/- (One Crore fifty four lacs, seventy one thousand) however the District Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint which pecuniary limit does not exceed Rs. fifty lacs (50,00,000) .

2        The grounds on which this appeal has been filed is that the impugned order passed inviolation of the provisions of section 34 of the Consumer Protection Act. 2019. It has been further stated that as per section 34 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the value of the goods or services is to be considered and not the quantum of entire claim amount as was there in the earlier consumer protection Act, 1986. It has been also stated that the paid amount as a premium of the insurance policy was rupees 1,56,505/-, which comes within the pecuniary limits of the District Commission. It has been also stated that the learned District Commission ought to have considered the law govering the complaint in question and not the earlier repealed law which has been repealed by enactment of new consumer Protection
Act. 2019 and it has been payed that by rejection of consumer complaint the principles of natural justice has been infringed and it has been further prayed that the order passed by learned District Commission in complaint No. 160 of 2022 on dated 17.08.2022 be set aside and passed appropriate order in the ends of justice.

3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and perused the impugned order and also the memo of appeal.
4. As per the provisions laid down in section 34(1), the District Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of goods or services paid as consideration does not exceed one crore rupees.

          Provided that where the Central Government deems it necessary so to do, it may prescribe such other value, as it deems fit.

          Central Government has again revised the pecuniary jurisdiction of the commission by the consumer protection (pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Commission, the State Commission and the National Commission) Rules 2021, whereby jurisdiction of the District Commission to entertain complaints is fixed up to Rs. Fifty  lacs (50,00,000)

5        Hon’ble National Commission in the case of M/S Pyaridevichabiraj steels Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. & others decided on 28 August 2022, held that only the value of the consideration ‘paid’ should be taken into consideration while determining the pecuniary jurisdiction and not the value of the goods or services and compensation.”

Further this State Commission has also taken the same view in M/s Gaurav Foods & cool connections Pvt. Ltd, V/s Union Bank of India & Anr. In complaint case no. 19 of 2021 decided on 03.03.2022 and same principles have also been reiterated in so many cases by this State Commission  like complaint case no. 33 of 2020 dated 31.03.2012 etc.

6. It is relevant to mentioned here that in previous Consumer Protection Act (Act No. 68 of 1986) the pecuniary Jurisdiction had been determined on the basis of value of the goods or services and the compensation.
7. As regards pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Commission in repealed Act was as follows:-

          Section 11 (Consumer Protection Act, 1986), Jurisdiction of the District Forum (now commission)

1. Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed does not exceed rupees twenty lacks.

9.                For the removal of doubts it is hereby clearedthat the compensation claimed is not a material, for entertaining the complaint before the concerned commission. In other words, compensation claimed is not a matter for consideration regarding entertaining the complaint at admission stage before the District Commission, the State Commission and the National Commission as per the provisions laid down in new Act (Act no. 35 of 2019). The matter regarding compensation may be considered at the stage of the passing of final order -  (Relied upon the order passed by this State Commission in Vaman Bhagwan Proprietor of Om Construction V/s OMRF  Pipe & products, decided on 02.02.2023).

10.     In view of the above facts and circumstances it appears that the learned District Commission has not considered the matter in right perspective. In our view the complaint case number 160 of 2022 filed by the appellant/complainant before the District Commission needs to be entertained as per the provisions of the present law. Hence, the impugned order dated 17.08.2022 passed by learned District Commission, Nawada is set aside. The complaint case No. 160 of 2022 is restored in its original form and the case is remanded to the learned District Commission for admission and after giving notice to the opposite party the complaint case would be heard in accordance with law and same to be disposed of on merit, preferably within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

We further observe that the limitation period shall not come into way, as the complainant has been pursuing his case before this State Commission.

The appeal is allowed.

A copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act 2019. The order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission.

Let the file be consigned in the record room along with copy of this order.

                                                                                                                                                                     Gita Verma                                                                                                                                                                                                      Judicial Member                                                                                                                                             

                                                                        Raj Kumar Pandey

                                                                                Member                                      

Agam