STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

M/s Fastrack Computing Ltd., S.C.O. No. 63, (First Floor), Sector 20-D, Chandigarh, through Sh. Iqbal Singh, its Managing Director.

                                ……Appellant

V E R S U S

1.        National Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office III, First Floor, S.C.O. No. 305-306, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.

2.        The Regional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., Regional office–II, S.C.O. 334-336, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.

3.        The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office, 813, N.A.C. Manimajra, Chandigarh.

             ....Respondents.

Appeal U/s 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

BEFORE:  HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER,   PRESIDENT.

                MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

Argued by: Sh. R.K. Bashamboo, Advocate for the appellant.

                 Sh.R.C. Gupta, Advocate for the respondents.

PER  HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT

1.                This appeal is directed against the order dated 10.08.2010, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which it dismissed the complaint of the complainant (now appellant).

2.                The facts, in brief, are that, the complainant was running a business of computer laptops, which were got insured, from OP-1, for the period from 28.02.2007 to 27.02.2008. During the intervening night of 12/13.12.2007, burglary took place and a number of laptops, were stolen.  The matter was reported to the Police Station, Sector 19, Chandigarh, as a result, whereof FIR No. 198 dated 13.12.2007, was registered. The list of the stolen laptops, was also handed over to the Police. The matter was reported to OP-1, upon which, OP-4 (M/s Consolidated Surveyors Pvt. Ltd.,), were deputed for assessment of the loss. The claim was submitted, with the OPs, but the same was repudiated, on various grounds. It was stated that the OPs were deficient, in rendering proper service, and indulged into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint was filed, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), claiming a sum of Rs.19,81,563/-, towards the loss suffered, on account of burglary of the laptops, Rs.5 lacs compensation suffered towards physical harassment, mental torture, and, mental tension, as well as, deficiency in service, in non-settling and payment of claim with interest @18% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint, till realization of the amount, alongwith Rs.25,000/-, as costs of litigation. The amount of loss of the laptops and the compensation, which was claimed by the complainant, on calculation, came to be Rs.24,81,563/-.

3.                 When the complaint was presented before the State Commission, the following order was passed:-

“Admittedly, the complainant in this matter has submitted that the OP is liable to pay an amount of Rs.19,81,563/- towards insurance claim. So on the request of the Learned Counsel for the complainant, let this complaint be put up before the District Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh, for disposal in accordance with law. Complainant is directed to appear before the District Forum-I, UT., Chandigarh today itself”.

4.                Ultimately, the complaint was received by the District Forum.

5.                The parties led evidence, in support of their case.

6.                After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and, record, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint, on various grounds.

7.                Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, was filed by the complainant (now appellant).

8.                We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record, of the case carefully. 

9.                The question, that falls for determination, is, as to whether, the District Forum, had pecuniary jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint, or not.    As stated above, the complainant claimed a sum of Rs.19,81,563/-, on account of loss of the laptops, in a theft, as also, Rs.5 lacs as compensation, and Rs.25,000/-, as costs of litigation. The amount claimed by the complainant, in the complaint, on calculation came to be Rs.24,81,563/- besides costs. The District Forum, could only entertain the complaint, wherein, the relief claimed by the party was Rs.20 lacs or less than that. In the order passed by the State Commission, referred to above, there is nothing, that the complainant abandoned its claim to the tune of Rs.5 lacs, as compensation, to bring the matter, within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum. The order dated 16.12.2009, passed by the State Commission did not relate, to the return of the complaint, to the complainant, for presenting the same before the appropriate Forum. It was only an administrative order, passed by the State Commission, for putting up the complaint by the complainant, before the District Forum-I, Chandigarh. The question, with regard to the pecuniary jurisdiction, is a legal question, and goes to the very root of the case. Even if, such an objection/question is not taken by any of the parties to the consumer dispute, it is for the District Forum or the Commission, to ascertain whether the reliefs claimed, in the complaint, fall within its pecuniary jurisdiction. In the instant case, in para 3 of the preliminary objections of the written statement, a specific objection was taken by the OPs that the amount involved was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum, but the same was not dealt with and decided by it. In our considered opinion, the District Forum had no pecuniary jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint, as the amount claimed by the complainant fell beyond Rs.20 lacs. Under these circumstances, the District Forum, wrongly took cognizance of the matter, though on the basis of an administrative order, passed by this Commission. In Similar circumstances in Rajendra Mohan Verma Vs. Branch Manager, State Bank of India & Ors., 2002(2) CPC 74, decided by a 5 Member Bench, of the National Commission, the complainant claimed compensation exceeding Rs.5 lacs (when the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum before amendment of the Act was upto Rs.5 lacs), alleging deficiency, in service, on the part of respondent bank. The claim was partly allowed by the District Forum, but the order was set aside by the State Commission. A Revision Petition, was filed by the complainant, which was dismissed by the National Commission, holding that it was surprised, as to how, the District Forum, at all took cognizance of the case, when it had no pecuniary jurisdiction. 

10.             In view of the above discussion, we are, therefore, of the considered opinion, that the appeal should be accepted, and, the complaint be returned to the complainant/appellant for presenting the same, before the appropriate Forum

11.             For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is accepted with no order as to costs and the order impugned is set aside. The complaint is ordered to be returned to the complainant, for presentation thereof, before the proper Forum, within 20 days, from the date of receipt, of a certified copy of the order. The complainant shall however, be at liberty, to move an application, for condonation of delay, under the appropriate provisions of law, at the time of presenting the complaint, before the appropriate Forum.

Pronounced.

16^th, May  2011.                                                      Sd/-

                                                                                         [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

                 PRESIDENT

Sd/-

                  [NEENA SANDHU]

                  MEMBER