Appeal No.1101/2023

19.06.2023.

1) Heard the counsel for Appellant on admission. 

2) This is an appeal filed by the Appellant under section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 praying to call for records and to set aside the judgment/order passed by the II Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore.

3) The facts of the appeal is that, the opposite party have pledged the gold ornaments of appellant’s wife for spurious purposes of agriculture and piggery business under Gold Loan Account No. 0486653000020975 and 0486654000020977.  The ground urged by the appellant is that, the District Commission came in to an erroneous finding that, the complaint is outside the purview of its jurisdiction without considering the documentary evidences placed on record and without hearing the main argument the District Commission has passed the judgment without considering the impleading applications made for non-joinder of parties. 

4) On perusal of the impugned order dated 03.05.2023 passed by the District Commission it reveals that, the District Commission has dismissed the complaint giving liberty to the complainant to approach either Civil Court or any other Competent Authority or Hon’ble State Commission for necessary reliefs.

5) While passing the order the District Commission has wrongly came to the conclusion that, the opposite party has played fraud, coercion and under influence and the District Commission has no jurisdiction to decide the case as relief exceeds 10 crore it shall be filed before the Hon’ble State Commission and the District Commission cannot decide the plea of unfair contract, fraud, coercion and undue influence.

6) However Section 34 (1) clearly states that, “the District Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration does not exceed fifty lakh rupees.  The amount relief is to return the gold ornament weighing 759.6 grams which has to be considered for the purpose of jurisdiction.  Hence the District Commission while passing the order has to consider Section 34(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as in the said case the value of the goods and services paid comes within the jurisdiction of the District Commission and hence it is for the District Commission to answer the question of section 34(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and pass its orders.  Further the appellant has sought for stay towards dispose-of the gold ornaments which were pledged at opposite party – Bank while obtaining gold loans as stated above.  As the finality of the dispute does not come to an end, hence stay has been granted until disposal of the complaint.  Hence we proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

Appeal is allowed.  Consequently impugned order passed by the Bangalore Urban II Additional District consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in CC No.463/2021 is hereby set aside and remanded back to the District Commission with a direction to dispose of complaint afresh as observation made above within three months from the date of receipt of this order.

Lady Member                         Judicial Member                    President

KNMP*