Mr. P. Mahanta, learned counsel, for the complainant is present. Ms. Komolini, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 1,2,3 and 4 is also present.

            During the course of argument Ms. Komolini referred to the order dated 12-05-2022 by which application dated 9-5-2022 filed by Mr. B. Patir, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 1,2,3 and 4 was disposed of. In the said petition dated 9-5-2022 it was pleaded that the complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 34,99570/- against ten number of fixed deposits. Finally there was a dispute in respect of maturity amount in respect of the said fixed deposits scheme, following which the complainant claimed the relief of Rs. 1,02,42,852/- which is the matured value against the investment of Rs. 34,99570/-. As this Commission has no pecuniary jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint as such the same may be transferred to a competent Commission for its disposal. The said application was disposed of as follows;

            “Heard Mr. P. Mahanta, learned counsel, appearing for the complainant. However, Mr. B. Patir, learned counsel, for the opposite party is absent today.

             An application under Section 151 of CPC for framing and hearing on preliminary issue was filed by the learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the opposite party. It is the contention of the opposite party that the complainant originally claimed an amount of Rs. 34,99,570/- only. As per the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission is beyond Rs. 1 crore and up to 10 crore. Learned counsel for the opposite party contended that since the complainant originally claimed Rs. 34,99570/-, this Commission has no jurisdiction.

              However, it is clarified by Mr. Mahanta that the total claim of the complaint is Rs. 1,02,42,852/- which is admittedly beyond Rs. 1 Crore. After Notification dated 30-12-2021 the pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission was fixed beyond Rs. 50 lakh to Rs. 2 crore. As the present claim in this complaint is Rs. 1,02,42,852/- under such circumstances, the question of framing issues regarding pecuniary jurisdiction in respect of the claim, made by the complainant, does not arise. As such, the application dated 9-5-2022 filed by the opposite party is dismissed since this Commission has the pecuniary jurisdiction in respect of this complaint case.

                        List it for filing of draft issues by the parties fixing 25-7-2022”.

            Referring to the findings in the order dated 12-5-2022 Ms. Komolini pointed out that this Commission had considered the value of the relief which is in contravention of Section 47(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Against the said submission Mr. Mahanta insisted that at that relevant point of time the decision from the Hon’ble Apex Court regarding the pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission was not declared and as such, this Commission reverted back to the provision of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and accordingly on the basis of the relief claimed, this Commission held that it has jurisdiction to entertain the claim.

            Having convinced on the submission of Ms. Komolini, we, on our part, re-visited the order dated 12-05-2022, reproduced here-in-above. In order to decide the submission of Ms. Komolini we refer and re-produce Section 47(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

“ complaints where the value of goods or services paid as consideration, exceeds rupees one crore, but does not exceed rupees ten crore:

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

                From the contents of Section 47(1)(a)(i) of the Act, 2019, this Commission can entertain complaint where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration exceeds Rs. 1 crore but does not exceeds Rs. 10 crore. Later on vide the Gazette Notification dated 30-12-2021 the Central Government amended and introduced “ Rs. 50 lakh in place of Rs. 1 crore and Rs. 2 crore in place of Rs. 10 crore”. However, in the said Gazette Notification dated 30-12-2021 it was clarified that the said amendment was prospective in nature as there was a specific direction not to transfer the cases already taken cognizance on the basis of the unamended provision of Section 47(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

                Considering the said provision in the Gazette Notification dated 30-12-2021, the order which was passed on 12-5-2022 held against the pleadings in the application dated 9-5-2022. Today, on the submission of Ms. Komolini and having revisited the order, we found that there was an error crept into the said order dated 12-05-2022 which is apparent on the face of it instead of considering the value of the goods/services, we considered the value of the reliefs. Under such circumstances, we appreciate Ms. Komilini in referring the said order dated 12-05-2022 and as this Commission passed an order which is error apparent on the face of it, we suo-moto exercise our jurisdiction for review as prescribed under Section 50 of the Consumer protection Act, 2019 and interfere with the order dated 12-5-2022 by modifying the said order that as the value of the services purchased from the opposite parties was Rs. 34,99,570/- , as such, this Commission has no pecuniary jurisdiction under Section 47(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and accordingly exercising our power under Section 48 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, transfer this complaint case to the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kamrup at Guwahati for its disposal fixing 26-7-2024 for appearance of the parties.

                 Send the entire case record to the learned District Commission, Kamrup. The learned Commission, Kamrup, on appearance of the parties, shall proceed for disposal of this complaint case.