HON’BLE MR. SUDEB MITRA, PRESIDING MEMBER

Order No. : 07

Date : 27.06.2024

    By filing the instant IA on 20.06.2023, the Applicant/petitioner i.e. the OP of CC/03/2023 filed on 26.04.2023 by the respondent of the instant IA, the applicant/OP of this IA and CC/03/2023 respectively contended that the instant CC/03/2023 dated 26.04.2023 filed by Shukla Dutta and Ronit Dutta, against the applicant of this IA is not maintainable before this Commission as the same is barred by pecuniary jurisdiction to be dealt with and disposed of by this forum as per C.P. Act of 2019.

    By preferring the instant IA, the Applicant of this IA Kotak Mahindra Life Insurance Co. Ltd contended that the C.P. Act of 1986 lent scope to determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Commission by aggregating the consideration paid and the compensation claimed. Later, after the coming into existence of major change in the C.P. Act of 2019, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Commissions were decided to be determined on the basis of the value of the service paid.

    It is agitated by the applicant/petitioner that in this complaint case (CC/03/2023) the premium paid by the complainant shall be treated to be the determining factor to decide under the pecuniary jurisdiction of which forum, the present complaint case shall be for adjudication, as per C.P. act of 2019.

    By filing the gazette notification of the Government of India dated 30.12.2021, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Ld. SCDRC as per Sub Clause (1) cluse (a) sub-section 1 of Sec. 47 of the C.P. Act of 2019 was reflected by the applicant/petitioner.

    The applicant also referred the judgement of Pyari Devi Chabiraj Steals Pvt. Ltd. VS National Insurance Company Ltd., pronounced on contest, by the Hon’ble NCDRC on 28.08.2020, and contended having regard to the spirit of the instant judgement that for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Ld. DCDRC, SCDRC and Hon’ble NCDRC, the value of goods or service paid as consideration alone has to be taken and not the value of the goods or service purchased taken, so as per relevant scopes of the provisions of Sec. 47 of the C.P. Act of 2019 this Forum at Asansol, does not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to deal with the CC/03/2023 since the complainant side of CC/03/2023 had paid Rs. 2,64,253.37/- as premium in respect of the purchased insurance policy in question involved in CC/03/2023 and the Ld. DCDRC should have been the proper forum to file CC/03/2023.

   By filing the instant IA, the Applicant/OP of CC;/03/2023 has pressed for the dismissal of CC/03/2023 as not maintainable before this forum on the ground of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction of this forum to deal with CC/03/2023, in its present form.

     The complainant of CC/03/2023 i.e. the OP of the instant IA filed written objection dated 08.09.2023, supported by affidavit and denied the materials particulars averred by the applicant in its filed IA and contended inter-alia that the total amount of compensation claimed is Rs. 56,35,500/- in CC/03/2023 so as per copes of the Sec. 47 of the C.P. Act 2019, fortified with notification, this Ld. SCDRC, Asansol has got pecuniary jurisdiction to deal with this case (CC/03/2023).

    The complainant has referred Sec. 2 (2) of the C.P. Act to refer the definition of ‘service’ as per C.P. Act and pressed the scope of Sec. 47 of the C.P. Act of 2019 and contended that the Ld. SDCDRC has the jurisdiction to deal with entertain the complaints where goods and service paid as consideration or for against unfair contract of the values of goods and service paid, as consideration.   

   By filing the instant written objection, the responding OPs of this IA has asserted that they claimed the insured amount as per provisions of the Insurance Policy of the OP Insurance Company of CC/03/2023 after the death of the husband of one of the complainants of CC/03/2023 Sukla Dutta, due to infection of Covid 19 virus and the claim of the OP of CC/03/2023 i.e. the present applicants of this IA about the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Ld. SCDRC determinable only on the amount of premium paid does not arise.

    By filing the instant written objection, the OP side of this IA pressed for rejection of the IA filed by the applicant/petitioner side.  

Point for consideration

    Now it is to be determined as to whether the instant IA filed by the petitioner/OP of CC/03/2023 deserves positive consideration and it is also to be weighed as to whether the objections raised by the respondent/OP of this IA i.e. the complainant side of the CC/03/2023, sustainable in the eye of law.

Decision with reasons

    At the outset it is needless to be reiterated that after the pronouncement of the judgement of M/S. Pyaridevi Chaiberaj Steals Pvt. Ltd. VS National Insurance Co. Ltd. on 28.08.2020, the consumer Protection (Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions) Rules, 2020 was amended and consumer Protection (Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions) Amendment Rules, 2022 came into operation with effect from 20.12.2022 and as per said amended rules, in rule 7, in sub rule (2), the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Ld. SCDRC has been modified.

    I have given thorough and anxious consideration to the submissions of the contesting parties of this IA/66/2023, this is obvious that the 2019 C.P. Act attempts to remedy the situation by not increasing the monetary threshold for determination the jurisdiction under each fora but also alters the criterion on the basis of which the monetary jurisdiction under the C.P. Act of 2019 is to be computed. In this regard, the C.P. Act of 2019 to some extent and intrepid and modified the pecuniary jurisdiction not the Ld. DCDRC, SCDRC and Hon’ble NCDRC.

More importantly, the 2019 Act has shifted from the value of the goods or services or services and the compensation, if any, claimed to the value of goods or services paid as consideration.

    Accordingly, the sole criteria to determine the pecuniary jurisdiction is the amount paid by a consumer for a good or service would be determinative of its value.

    I have perused the cited reference of M/S Pyari Devi Chaiberaj Steals Pvt. Ltd. VS National Insurance Co. Ltd. It appears from the findings of the judgement of the afrestated case, reached by the Hon’ble NCDRC, New Delhi that the Applicant in that case i.e. Pyaridevi Chaiberaj Steals Pvt. Ltd. contended in that case that the value of its’ claim shall not be solely determined on the basis of the amount of premium and applicant also contended that Sec. 58 (1) (a) of C.P. Act must not be given ‘strict’ interpretation to include only the amount of goods and services involved for computing the value of claim and accordingly it was argued that the term ‘paid’ under the section, in harmonious rending with the objectives of the act, must include the amount of compensation claimed by the applicant. Most importantly, as I find, the applicant claim that by providing a strict interpretation to Sec. 58 (1) (a), the Commission would deny several insurance policies, a right to approach the National Commissions, since there would not be any instance of any insurance holder praying an insurance premium of more than Rs. Ten Crores.

    It is revealing from the judgement pronounced by the Hon’ble NCDRC in that case that the Commission had rejected the submission of the applicant M/S Pyaridevi Chaberj Steals Pvt. Ltd. and laid down that only the value of goods and services paid as consideration ‘would be relevant in determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of case under the C.P. Act of 2019. In doing so, the commission noted the legislative intention in omitting the term ‘compensation’ in the 2019 C.P. Act when juxtaposed against the C.P. Act of 1986.

   Therefore, the amount of compensation claimed would have no bearing on the pecuniary jurisdictions of the commissions.

    The commission also referred to Section 34 (1), 47 (1), 58 (1) of the C.P. Act of 2019 which set out the jurisdictional thresholds for the various commissions to conclude that only the price paid at the first instance of availing a good or service would be salient in assessing the respective pecuniary jurisdiction of the commission.

   It is also found from the findings of the case of ‘MS Garima Kaushik VS M/S Supertech Ltd. decided by the Hon’ble SCDRC, Delhi that ‘The Categorical inclusion of the world “Consideration” and the omission of the word ‘Compensation’ made in the new Act clearly shows that the pecuniary jurisdiction before this Commission has to be determined based on the consideration paid and not on the basis of the aggregate reliefs sought for…..”

    In this backdrop, having regard to the above discussions, in the absence of any judicial findings that has by now refuted or disproved the findings of the cited reference of M/S. Pyaridevi Chabary Steals Pvt. Ltd. pronounced on 28.08.2020 pressed in this IA, by the applicant/petitioner side of this IA, having regard to the fact that his forum shall have pecuniary jurisdiction in pursuance to the proviso to sub clause (i) of clause (a) of Sub-Section 1 of the Sec. 47 of the C.P. Act of 2019, to entertain complaints where the value of goods or service paid as consideration exceeds Rs. 50 lakhs but does not exceed 02 crore rupees, I find that since the OP/Respondent of this IA i.e. the complainant side of CC/03/2023 had paid premium, in respect of the purchased insurance policy referred in CC/03/2023 to the tune of Rs. 2,64,253.67/- and the cover amount at inception of the insurance of Monaj Kumar Dutta, husband of complainant Shukla Dutta of CC/03/2023 is Rs. 44,35,000/- so, the total figure of these tow amount is below Rs. 50 lakhs and for this Ld. SDCDRC cannot have pecuniary jurisdiction to deal with CC/03/2023, filed here by the complainant side of CC/03/2023.

    Though the total claim of compensation in this case is reflected by the complainant as Rs. 56,35,000/- and in this amount besides Rs. 44,35,000/- (crore amount of insurance at the inception) and Rs. 2,64,253.67/- (premium amount paid for such insurance policy) the total residual amounts of total Rs. 56,35,000/- are claimed as compensation and aggregate of other reflects sought for in CC/03/2023 so in view of the findings of the M/S. Pyaridevi Chabery Steals Pvt. Ltd so referred in this judgement, pronounced by the Hon’ble NCDRC and MS Gorima Kaushik pronounced by the Hon’ble SCDRC, Delhi, I do not find any cogent and legally sustainable reason to hold that this fora has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the CC/03/2023 for adjudication here in this SCDRC.

    In the premises this IA filed by the OP of CC/03/2023 succeeds on contest.

     Hence, it is

                               ORDERED

    That the instant IA/66/2023 filed by the OP of CC/03/2023, Kotak Mahindra Life Insurance Company Ltd. is allowed on contest, without cost.

    This SCDRC has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain CC/03/2023 in its present form and accordingly CC/03/2023 is dismissed as not maintainable on the ground lack of pecuniary jurisdiction of this fora to entertain the proceeding of CC/03/2023 here.

   The complainant of CC/03/2023 is at liberty to take all appropriate measures, sustainable in the eye of law, process her claim before the appropriate legal fora.

   Let a copy of this order be furnished to the contesting parties of the IA free of cost, forthwith in accordance with the relevant provisions of C.P. Act of 2019 and its rules existing (as amended upto date).