This complaint has been instituted as the original complaint filed before the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) registered as Complaint Case No. 102/2009 was returned for being presented before this Commission vide order dated 11.07.2023/28.08.2023.  An application has been moved on 02.05.2024 seeking permission to modify and amend the relief clause in this complaint which in effect seeks reduction in the rate of interest from 18% to 12%. 

Learned counsel for the parties have agreed for the final disposal of the matter at this stage itself.

As noted above, the complaint was filed on 29.12.2009 under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as it then existed, before the State Commission with the following reliefs:

“(a)    The opposite party be directed to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.56,45,462.00 (Rupees fifty six lakhs forty five thousand for hundred sixty two only) along with an interest @ 18% p.a. with effect from 04.08.05 till the date of actual payment.

(b)     Award a sum of Rs.2,00,000.00 (two lakhs only) for not settling the claim within three month against O.P.

(c)      Award a sum of Rs.2,00,000.00 (Two lakhs only) for harassment and deficiency in services.

(d)     Award a sum of Rs.5,00,000.00 (Rupees Five Lakhs only) as special damage for jeopardizing the defense needs of the country.

(e)      Award a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) as the costs of the case.

(f)      Pass any order or relief deemed just, proper and necessary in the circumstance of the case.”

When the matter came up for final hearing after 14 years in 2023, the State Commission came to the conclusion as follows:

“In view of the above decisions, the total amount of relief sought by the complainant including 18 percent interest on the principal amount is Rs.97,10,034/- and other reliefs are around Rs.9 lakhs.  The total claim comes to Rs.1,08,89,239/- (One Crore Eight Lakh Eighty Ninety Thousand Two Hundred Thirty Nine).

As on date if filing of the present complaint, the cumulative relief sought by the complainant were beyond the jurisdiction of the State Commission and hence this complaint is not maintainable before the State Commission.  Therefore, the complaint deserves to be dismissed as not maintainable.

Order

The presented complaint is dismissed on the ground of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction. The complaint be returned to the complainant to be present it in the appropriate court.”

When the complaint was presented before this Commission, the Office submitted a report on 01.01.2024 to the following effect:  

“Humbly submitted that, the instant complaint has been filed on behalf of M/s Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, through its Advocate, MR. Avneesh Garg, before this Hon'ble Commission against M/s New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

The instant Consumer Complaint was initially filed before Ld. State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Lucknow, which was registered as CC/2009/102. The said Consumer Complaint was returned, vide order dated 11.07.2023 (order of Ld. State commission placed at page no. 147-153) with a direction to present before appropriate court. The operative Para of the said order is reproduced below:-

"... The present complaint is dismissed on the ground of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction. The complaint be returned to the complainant to be present it in the appropriate court...."

It is humbly submitted that, the said Consumer Complaint CC/2009/102 was filed under CPA 1986, before State Commission, Lucknow and prayed the following relief-

a)       Rs. 56,45,462/ with 18% interest from 04.08.2005 till actual payment.

b)       Rs. 200000/- compensation due to non-setellement of claim within 3 months.

c)       Rs.2,00,000/- on the basis of deficiency in service and harassment of the complainant.

d)       Rs.5,00,000/- as special compensation for causing harm to the security and need of the nation.

e)       Rs.25000/- as litigation expenses.

The pecuniary jurisdiction as per CPA 1986, to file the complaint before the National Commission, if the claim amount exceeds Rs. 1 Cr and above.

If the interest is calculated from 04.08.2005 till the date of filing before State Commission, it become more than 1 Cr.

In view of above prayers, the total amount of relief sought by the complainant including 18 percent interest on principle amount and other reliefs sought constitute total amount exceeding Rs.1 Crore.

3.       The Consumer Complaint No.102 of 2009 was instituted before the State Commission, in the December, 2009.

The Complainant has now filed the instant Consumer Complaint before this Commission under the New Consumer Protection Act, 2019, pursuant to the directions of Ld. State Commission, Lucknow passed in the Complaint No.2009/102.

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has jurisdiction, as on 11.07.2023 (the date of the order of the State Commission) to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration exceeds rupees two crores.

As the actual amount paid is not involved in deciding the pecuniary jurisdiction of complaint in terms of CPA 2019, the Registry has raised the following defects at the time of filing:

1. Please clarify whether the instant complaint has to be registered under the provision of the Old Act of CPA 1986, or CPA 2019.

2. If it is filed under the CPA 2019, whether it satisfies the pecuniary jurisdiction under new Act.

3. Proforma for filing Consumer Complaint not file.

4. W/Fare Stamp for Rs.25/- not affixed on Vakalatnama.

In response to above defects, Ld. Counsel for Complainant, submitted that as the Ld. State Commission has disposed of the matter on pecuniary jurisdiction, so the matter be placed before the Hon'ble Bench for their direction.

The major objection is that this Commission lacks in jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint as the value of the goods or services paid as consideration are much below Rs. 2 Crores.

The question for consideration is whether this Complaint is to be registered before this Commission under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or the Consumer Protection Act, 2019?

Assuming that the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 qua the pecuniary jurisdiction is applicable in instant Consumer Complaint, the present complaint can be entertained by the National Commission.

Having regard to the above, the instant Consumer Complaint is placed before the Hon'ble Bench, on the 12.01.2024 for kind perusal and necessary directions, as to whether:-

a)       to register the instant Consumer Complaint under the provisions of New Consumer Protection Act, 2019; Or

b)       to register the present case under CPA 1986 as the matter was instituted against old act before Ld. State Commission; Or

c)       to register the present case under CPA 2019 even though the pecuniary jurisdiction of instant matter is less than 2 Cr; Or

d)       Pass any other directions as may deem fit & proper in the facts & circumstances of the case.

Submitted, please.”

This Bench on 12.01.2024 therefore called upon the learned counsel for the applicant/complainant to peruse the Office report as also the judgment in the case of Neena Aneja and Anr. Vs. Jai Prakash Associates Ltd. (2022) 2 SCC 161 and then assist the Bench.  Adjournments were sought on 18.01.2024 and again the matter was directed to come up on 23.03.2024 when after hearing learned counsel for the applicant/complainant the following order was passed:

“This compilation has been filed as a complaint before this Commission on the orders passed by the State Commission on 11.07.2023.

The complaint was filed on 29.12.2009 under the then existing Consumer Protection Act, 1986. According to the State Commission, the valuation for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction exceeded Rs. 1,00,00,000/- hence the State Commission came to the conclusion that along with the principal amount, the interest demanded on it will also have to be included for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction, for which reliance was placed on the decision of Ambrish Kumar Shukla Vs. Ferrous Infra Private Limited Published I 2017 CPJ 1 (NC) followed by the Commission in the case of Raikumar Goval Vs. Jalandhar Improvement Trust 2020 CPJ 316 (NC). The State Commission therefore held that the principal amount of Rs.97,10,034/-, and with interest of 18% thereon would approximately be Rs.9,00,000/-, hence adding the same to the principal amount, the total claim exceeds Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. Accordingly, the complaint was dismissed on the ground of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction and the Complainant was called upon to present it before the appropriate forum.

In the light of the aforesaid findings recorded by the State Commission, the issue which arises for consideration is as to whether given the pecuniary jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, is it now to be considered in the light of the provisions which indicate that the pecuniary jurisdiction will be determined on the basis of paid consideration as held by this Commission in the case of'M/s. Pyaridevi Chabiraj Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. in CC No. 833 of 2020 decided on 28.08.2020'.

The question therefore would arise as to whether on the paid consideration, the jurisdiction, if the original complaint is entertained afresh today would stand transferred to the District Commission and not even to the State Commission.

The ratio of the decision in the case of 'Neena Aneia and Another Vs. Jai Prakash Associates Limited (2022) 2 SCC 161', the Apex Court has indicated of the continuance of the proceedings before the same forum where they were instituted in the event there is a change in the pecuniary jurisdiction due to the coming to the force of Consumer Protection Act, 2019. To that extent the proceedings were saved, but in the present case the issue is that at the very inception when the complaint was filed in 2009, the State Commission had no pecuniary jurisdiction at all and the matter ought to have been instituted keeping in view the valuation of the case before the National Commission.

In the background above in order to avoid any prejudice to the Complainant who has waited in the queue for 15 years, the period of limitation might also create an impediment in the passage of the entertaining of a fresh complaint under the new Act.

However without entering into the said issue at this stage what needs to be determined is as to whether the present compilation can be permitted to be converted into an appeal allowing the complainant to assail the impugned order as on date, keeping in view the fact that the complaint was instituted under the old act of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The appeal would be a continuation of the same complaint and therefore taking help of the aforesaid continuation, the impugned order can possibly be set aside with a direction to the State Commission to continue with the complaint inasmuch as, on date, it is the State Commission that can have the pecuniary jurisdiction in respect of a complaint instituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This might be possible as if the complaint was subsisting before the State Commission till the date of the passing of the impugned order. It would thus be restoring the complaint which otherwise will continue to be within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission under the old Act of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and therefore this technical aspect can also be handled.

Nonetheless, learned Counsel for the complainant may examine this issue from other angles in order to enable this Commission to harmonise the provisions and effectively read the ratio of the orders and the judgement that are required to be gone into for the purpose of the maintainability of the complaint on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction.

The office is also directed to study the matter and furnish a fresh report on this issue. Learned Counsel may also assist the Bench with whatever material he has. List for directions on 24.04.2024 at 9.30 a.m.

Issue notice to the Opposite Party calling upon them also to answer this question in the background that the complaint had proceeded on merits before the State Commission with pleadings and evidence having been exchanged. The notice be dispatched by the registered post and the learned Counsel may also serve them dasti by hand. Learned Counsel may also intimate the Counsel who had appeared before the State Commission on behalf of the Opposite Party, the Registry may also send the notice on the e-mail address to be provided by the learned Counsel for the Complainant. It shall be open to the Opposite Party to join online or be physically present on the date fixed through counsel or otherwise subject to their options.”

With the dispatch of notices to the non-applicant/opposite party/Insurance Company, they have put in appearance through their learned counsel and in order to further address and resolve the controversy, a report was called for from the Office afresh.  The following Office report was tendered on 23.04.2024 itself:

“Vide order dated 23.03.2024, the Hon'ble Bench is pleased to, inter alia, direct the Registry as under:

"The office is also directed to study the matter and furnish a fresh report on this issue".

At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to third para at Page 3 of the said order, which reads as under.

"However, without entering into the said issue at this stage what needs to be determined is as to whether the present compilation can be permitted to be converted into an appeal allowing the complainant to assail the impugned order as on date, keeping in view the fact that the complaint was instituted under the old act of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The appeal would be a continuation of the same complaint and therefore taking help of the aforesaid continuation, the impugned order can possibly be set aside with a direction to the State Commission to continue with the complaint inasmuch as, on date, it is the State Commission that can have the pecuniary jurisdiction in respect of a complaint instituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This might be possible as if the complaint was subsisting before the State Commission till the date of the passing of the impugned order. It would thus be restoring the complaint which otherwise will continue to be within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission under the Old Act of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and therefore, this technical aspect can also be handled".

In view of the above, the Registry submits the report as under:

REPORT

With reference to the observation of the Bench, mentioned in bold letters in the above quoted para, it is submitted that the present compilation can be permitted to be converted into a First Appeal, or, the Complainant may be allowed to file proper First Appeal.

It is further submitted that the Appellant (if the present compilation is allowed to be converted into an Appeal or if the complainant is allowed to file proper First Appeal) if so chooses, will be at liberty to file an application seeking amendment of the prayer Clause, i.e., the prayer clause mentioned in the consumer complaint filed before the State Commission, by reducing the amount claimed therein. This submission is made keeping in view of the fact that the Consumer Complaint has been dismissed by the State Commission as the pecuniary value of the complaint was in excess of the limits of pecuniary jurisdiction vested in the State Commission. It can be entertained by the State Commission only if the Complainant restricts the relief within the pecuniary jurisdiction, i.e. below Rs.1 Crore. In my humble submission, it is permissible in law to claim a lesser relief than the entitlement. The jurisdictional defect, as pointed out by the State Commission, is relating to the excess amount claimed by the Complainant, which amount can be permitted to be reduced and be brought within the pecuniary limits of the State Commission.

Submitted, pl.”

On 24.04.2024 learned counsel for the Insurance Company sought time to seek instructions and respond to the application which had been proposed by the learned counsel to be filed. 

Learned counsel for the applicant/complainant made submissions in tune with the suggestion made by the Office and an application has been moved to reduce the claim pertaining to the rate of interest as pleaded in the complaint which would aid in bringing town the pecuniary jurisdiction that would be available to the State Commission.

A copy of the application has been sent to the Insurance Company by mail and the same has also been perused by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company today.

The application seeks to amend the prayer clause with regard to the rate of interest reducing it from 18% to 12%.  Consequently, with the said reduction the amount of claim stands reduced to approximately Rs.85.50 Lakhs and with the addition of other reliefs amounting to approximately Rs.9.00 Lakhs, the total amount claimed as on date on the filing of the complaint according to the applicant/complainant comes to less than Rs.1.00 Crore.

There is one aspect which needs to be taken notice of, namely, that the complaint was filed in the year 2009 before the State Commission and the pleadings were exchanged between the parties, including the exchange of affidavits of evidence.  It is after 14 years of the pendency of the complaint before the State Commission that the order was passed on 11.07.2023/28.08.2023 calling upon the applicant/complainant to present the complaint before this Commission. 

In the opinion of the Commission and also in view of the submissions raised by the learned counsel for both the parties, it is imperative to take a pragmatic view of the matter and consider the application moved by the applicant/complainant for reducing the quantum of his relief by decreasing the rate of interest as this would facilitate the continuance of the complaint before the State Commission itself where all pleadings have been exchanged and the matter had reached the stage of final hearing.  The issue of pecuniary jurisdiction ought to have been considered way back in 2009 itself when the complaint had been filed but the same was noticed at the stage of final hearing and therefore the matter had to be returned for presentation before the appropriate forum.

Learned counsel for the applicant/complainant urged that since he did not find any error of the State Commission on the basis of the calculations therein, he did not file any appeal questioning the correctness of the said order and in compliance thereof has presented this complaint but at the same time he has pleaded that if the present complaint is to be entertained, then that would prolong the hearing of the matter once again.  Accordingly the application for amending the prayer thereby reducing the claim has been filed.

The aforesaid contention seems to be correct but at the same time the order of the State Commission has been passed for returning of the complaint.  It is to meet this situation that the application has been moved praying for reducing the claim so as to bring the complaint within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission.

In the above circumstances, this Commission can also take resort to the powers available to the Commission as referred to under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in order to resolve the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction on the amended plea raised by the learned counsel for the complainant through this application which ought to have been done before the State Commission.

In the peculiar facts of this case as noted above and the pendency of the matter since 2009, it would be in the interest of justice for advancing the cause of justice that an appropriate order be passed accepting the request made through the application by the complainant, permitting the complainant to reduce and amend his prayer for grant of interest @ 12% instead of 18%, thereby bringing the complaint within the jurisdiction of the State Commission itself. 

Accordingly, the application moved by the complainant is allowed and he is permitted to amend his complaint by reducing the rate of interest from 18% to 12%, thereby facilitating the entertaining and decision of the complaint within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission.

Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that this period of almost 15 years should be excluded in the event any liability is sought to be fixed on the Insurance Company by way of interest as there is no fault on the part of the Insurance Company.  This issue was also raised before the State Commission itself.

Be that as it may, since the complaint is not being entertained here, and is being remitted back to the State Commission, it will be open to the Insurance Company to take any such objection which may be permissible in law.  It shall be open to the complainant to respond in this regard and shall be decided finally by the State Commission itself. 

Consequently, this diary is disposed of in supersession of the order dated 11.07.2023/28.08.2023 passed by the State Commission allowing the request of amendment by the complainant for amending the rate of interest and reducing it from 18% to 12% in the prayer clause of the complaint.  The order of the State Commission dated 28.08.2023 is set aside in exercise of the suo motu powers under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the peculiar facts of this case as discussed above.

As stated at the bar, pleadings have been exchanged and completed between the parties and therefore the State Commission is requested to proceed with the final hearing of the complaint (CC/102/2009) which shall stand restored before the State Commission for final disposal.

The complainant is accordingly permitted to file the amended complaint within 4 weeks to which the Insurance Company may file an amended written version within 4 weeks thereafter and a rejoinder by the complainant, if so needed, and the matter shall proceed accordingly.   

The Office is directed to give this Diary a regular Suo Motu Revision Petition Number.  The application shall also be given an IA Number.

This order is being passed in the peculiar facts of this case and shall not be treated as a precedent.

Matter stands disposed of subject to the above.