Haryana

StateCommission

CC/54/2015

PURI OIL MILLS LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. - Opp.Party(s)

R.K.SHARMA

30 Jan 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA.

 

                                                Complaint No.54 of 2015

                                             Date of Institution:29.04.2015

          Date of Decision: 30.01.2017

 

M/s Puri Oil Mills Limited, through its authorized officer Sh.Rajesh Keshry, company Secretary, Puri Oil Mills Limited, Registered office at 302, Jyoti Shikhar, 8, District Centre, Janak Puri, New Delhi 110058.

…..Complainant

Versus

 

1.      Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, through its Divisional Manager, Rider House, Ground & First Floor, Plot No.136, Sector 44, Gurgaon 122002.

 

2.      Prudent Insurance Brokers Private Limited through its President, # 462, Udyog vihar, Phase V, Gurgaon-122016.

          …..Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                   Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                    

For the parties:  Mr.R.K.Sharma, Advocate counsel for the complainants.

                             Mr.R.K.Bashamboo, Advocate counsel for the opposite party No.1.

                             Mr. A.S.Likhari, Advocate counsel for opposite party No.2.

 

O R D E R

 

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

            As per complainant it is public Limited company and is doing business under name and style of “Puri Oil Mills Limited”. It was allotted site for a mini hydro electric project 1.4 mw on the augmentation canal at RD 16.836 to 19.916.  It developed 1.4 M.v. Mini Dydro Electric Power Plant namely Khukhani SHP on the Augmentation Canal at village Khukhni-Thaska Khader,Tehsil Radaur, Distt. Yamuna Nagar, Haryana. The hydro electric power plant was commissioned on 30.09.2011.  It purchased insurance policy for the loss of profit in elect. Generation of Hydropower from Opposite Party (O.P.) No.1. The power plant was insured from 25.08.2011 to 14.08.2012 for Rs. Three crores.  On 15.12.2011 at about 6.00 A.M. a breach occurred due to land subsidence at right side near RD18.200 k.m. on the Augmentation Canal. The sudden collapse of the side bank of the canal was spreading rapidly and within few minutes about 7-8 meters long segment of the earthen bank collapsed alongwith protection wall and brick lining provided at inner surface of canal wall. Intimation was sent to the insurance company. It suffered loss of Rs.71.89 lacs due to non-working of plant from 15.12.2011 to 27.02.2012.  Claim was filed, but, O.P.No.1 rejected the same vide  letter dated 15.01.2013 on the ground that loss is not payable under fire policy, therefore claim lodged under Business interruption policy also stands closed as “No Claim”.  The O.Ps.  be directed to indemnify loss of Rs.71.89/- lacs alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of loss till the date of realization besides compensation to the tune of Rs.One lac for inconvenience, harassment, discomfort, disappointment etc., Rs.100000/- as punitive damages and Rs.55,000/- as exemplary costs.

2.               In reply, it is alleged by O.P.No.1 that breach occurred due to earthern banks of the canal. It did not explain correct reasons for damage of canal. The breach occurred due to weak structure of canal. The loss was not indemnifiable under the terms and conditions of the policy. Claim was rightly repudiated vide letter dated 15.01.2013. Preliminary Objections with regard to pecuniary jurisdiction, limitation etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.               O.P.No.2 alleged that complainant was not it’s consumer. Correspondence in between complainant and O.P.No.1 was not within it’s realm of awareness or knowledge, so, complainant was not entitled for any claim. Objections about  accruing cause of action, concealment of true facts, maintainability etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint

4.                Arguments heard. File perused.

5.                Learned counsel for complainant vehemently argued that interest and other amount, claimed as compensation, cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction.  Only the actual compensation claimed due to loss is to be taken into consideration.  Opinion of Hon’ble National  Commission expressed in Consumer case No.97 of 2016 titled as Ambrish Kumar Shukla & 21 Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. decided on 07.10.2016 is applicable in the cases of flats/plots only and not qua such like cases. 

          He further argued that State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (In short “State Commission, Chandigarh”) opined in complaint case NO.CC05/2014 titled Sh.Karnail Sikngh Vs. M/s Emaar MGF land limited decided on 09.04.2014 that interest claimed cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction.  M/s Emaar MGF land limited filed appeal against that order which was dismissed by Hon’ble National Commission vide order dated 25.07.2014.  Thereafter Emaar MGF filed SLP before Hon’ble Supreme Court which was also dismissed on 14.11.2014. so looking from any angle it is clear that this commission is having pecuniary jurisdiction to try this complaint.

6.      This argument is devoid of any force.  In Ambrish’s case (supra) Hon’ble National Commission has not decided question involving flats only, but, a general principle is laid down which is to be kept in mind while looking into pecuniary jurisdiction. In Issue No.2 pertaining to Reference Dated 11.08.2016 it is specifically opined that interest claimed is also to be taken for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction.  Reference dated 11.08.2016 is as under:-

          “Reference dated 11.08.2016

          Issue No.(i)

It is the value of the goods or services, as the case may be, and not the value or cost of removing the deficiency in the service which is to be considered for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction.

          Issue No.(ii)

The interest has to be taken into account for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of a consumer Forum.

Hon’ble National Commission has opined in Appeal No.1194 of 2016 titled in Santosh Arya Vs. EMAAR MGF Land Limited decided on 07.10.2016 that general relief claimed is also to be taken into consideration. For ready reference para No.3 of that judgement is reproduced as under:-

“3.     On a bare reading of the afore-extracted provision, it is clear that it is only the value of the goods or services and the quantum of the compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint, which determines the jurisdiction of the State Commission.  In other words, it is the aggregate of the value of the goods agreed to be paid by the consumer and the amount claimed as compensation, which will determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of the state Commission. the act does not envisage determination of the pecuniary jurisdiction based upon the cost of removing the deficiency in the goods purchased or the services to be rendered to a consumer.”

7.      For ready reference the relief claimed is as under:-

“1.	Compensation claimed for	Rs.71,89,000/-
2.	Interest claimed	Rs.43,13,400/-
3.	Compensation claimed	Rs.1,00,000/-
4.	Punitive damages claimed	Rs.1,00,000/-
5.	Exemplary costs claimed	Rs.55,000/-
	Total	Rs.1,17,57,400/-“

As per this calculation relief claimed is more than one crore which is beyond pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission.  When this commission is not having pecuniary jurisdiction to adjudicate upon this matter, it is not supposed to go into the merits of the case because judgment without jurisdiction is nullity as opined by Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.317 of 1994 titled as Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. Vipan Kumar Kohli decided on 19.01.1995.

8.                As a sequal to above discussion, complaint is dismissed as beyond pecuniary jurisdiction.

 

January 30th, 2017

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.