Uttarakhand

StateCommission

CC/7/2020

Smt. Savita Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. J.P. Nautiyal

05 Apr 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND

DEHRADUN

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 07 / 2020

 

Smt. Savita Devi W/o late Rijnesh Kumar

R/o 1401/37, Civil Lines

Jadugar Road, Roorkee

District Haridwar, Uttarakhand

…… Complainant

 

Versus

 

1.         Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited

            A-501, 5^th Floor, Building No. 4

            Infinity I.T. Park, Dindoshi

            Malad (E), Mumbai – 400 097

 

2.         Branch Manager, Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited

            F 98, 24 A, NCR Plaza, New Cantt. Road

Dehradun, Uttarakhand

…… Opposite Parties

 

Sh. Harsh Kant, Learned Counsel for the Complainant

Sh. Suresh Gautam, Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties

 

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.S. Tripathi, President

               Mr. Udai Singh Tolia,                         Member-II

                                   

Dated: 05/04/2023

ORDER

(Per: Justice D.S. Tripathi, President):

 

Smt. Savita Devi W/o late Rijnesh Kumar, R/o 1401/37, Civil Lines, Jadugar Road, Roorkee District Haridwar, Uttarakhand (hereinafter to be referred as “the complainant”) has approached this Commission by filing the instant consumer complaint against Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited and another, seeking the following reliefs:

 

“The complainant be awarded following reliefs against the opposite parties:-

 

1. The opposite parties be jointly or severally directed to pay sum of      Rs. 1,56,36,000/- to the complainant towards Home Equity Loan claim.
2. The opposite parties be directed to pay an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the complainant towards mental agony.
3. The complainant be awarded litigation expenses of Rs. 5,000/-.
4. Any other relief which Hon’ble Commission deems fit, be granted to the complainant.”

 

2.       A perusal of the consumer complaint reveals that late Rijnesh Kumar, the deceased husband of the complainant – Smt. Savita Devi, had availed Home Equity Loan from Tata Capital Housing Finance Limited, which was sanctioned vide Home Equity Loan Sanction Letter dated 29.07.2018, showing the total amount sanctioned as     Rs. 1,47,54,939/- and an amount of Rs. 2,54,939/- was shown as credit life insurance.  The said loan was to be repaid in monthly installments (EMI) of Rs. 1,62,187/- each.  For securing the above loan, the deceased husband of the complainant, was covered under Group Credit Secure Plus insurance policy issued by opposite party No. 1, carrying sum insured to the tune of Rs. 1,45,00,000/-.  The said policy was valid for the period from 24.08.2018 to 23.08.2022.  In para 8 of the consumer complaint, it has been stated that Sh. Rijnesh Kumar died on 08.10.2018, due to cardiac arrest.  Pursuant thereto, the complainant lodged claim with the opposite parties (insurance company), which was repudiated by the insurance company through letter dated 13.12.2018 on the ground that there was no accident, causing death of the insured, hence the claim does not fall under the purview of accidental death benefit of the policy.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, consumer complaint was set in motion.

 

3.       We have heard learned counsel for the parties on the point of pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission and perused the record.       

 

4.       In the present consumer complaint, a preliminary jurisdiction point arises as to how this consumer complaint is maintainable before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter to be referred as “the State Commission”), because the value of the consideration paid in the present case, i.e., premium paid for taking the insurance policy was admittedly only Rs. 2,54,939/-, which is less than the consideration paid of more than Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore), as provided under Section 47(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, under the provisions of which Act, the present consumer complaint was filed before the State Commission on 14.12.2020.

 

5.       For ready reference, the provisions of Section 47(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 are reproduced below:

 

“47. Jurisdiction of State Commission – (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the State Commission shall have jurisdiction –

1. to entertain –

1. complaints where the value of the 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.”

 

6.       From a reading of the aforesaid provision, it is amply clear that for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction, the value of the goods or services paid as consideration alone, has to be taken.

 

7.       Thus, in view of above, on the date of filing of the consumer complaint, i.e., 14.12.2020, the State Commission had jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration, exceeds rupees one crore, but does not exceed rupees ten crore.  In the present case, as is stated above, the amount of premium deducted / paid was Rs. 2,54,939/-, as is mentioned in Group Credit Secure Plus Certificate of Insurance, copy whereof is Paper Nos. 14 & 15 on record, which amount falls below the pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission, as the State Commission has jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration exceeds rupees one crore, but does not exceed rupees ten crore, as it was on the date of filing of the consumer complaint.

 

8.       A similar issue came up for consideration before Hon’ble National Commission in Consumer Case No. 833 of 2020;            M/s Pyaridevi Chabiraj Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and others, decided on 28.08.2020.  In the said case, the complainant – M/s Pyaridevi Chabiraj Steels Pvt. Ltd. had approached Hon’ble National Commission against National Insurance Company Limited and others, claiming certain reliefs.  In the said case, the complainant had taken insurance coverage from the insurance company under Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy initially for a total sum of Rs. 28,00,20,000/- by paying a premium of Rs. 3,20,525/- only.  The complainant further took an additional security coverage of Rs. 13,00,00,000/- by paying a premium of      Rs. 1,23,037/-.  After quoting the relevant provisions of the Act, it was held by Hon’ble National Commission that as the value of consideration paid by the complainant is only Rs. 4,43,562/-, i.e.,    Rs. 3,20,525/- plus Rs. 1,23,037/-, which were the amount of premiums paid by the complainant, which is not above                     Rs. 10,00,00,000/- (as it was at that time), the National Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint and the same was accordingly dismissed.

 

9.       In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that as the value of consideration paid is only Rs. 2,54,939/-, which is not above Rs. 1,00,00,000/-, the State Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the present consumer complaint and it is accordingly dismissed, being not maintainable.  However, the complainant, if she so advised, may file a consumer complaint before the District Commission having jurisdiction in the matter and in that event, may seek benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, according to law.  No order as to costs.

 

10.     A copy of this Order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 / 2019.  The Order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.                      

 

 

(U.S. TOLIA)                            (JUSTICE D.S. TRIPATHI)

               Member-II                                                President

 

K