BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 11^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

ORDER

SRI.K.S.BILAGI, PRESIDENT

1. The complaint came to be filed under Section 12 of C.P.Act 1986 on 24.02.2020 to direct the OP to release the original documents in favour of the complainant as legal heir of Chandrashekar.M. and direct the OP to issue No Objection Certification in respect of Loan account No.6010703710 in the name of Chandrashekar.M.

2. The case set up by the complainant in brief is as under:-

Chandrashekar.M husband of the complainant availed housing loan of Rs.45,00,000/- from M/s Punjab National Bank Housing Finance Ltd., and under housing insurance policy No.1901067072 and premium of Rs.27,954/- paid on 21.02.2017.

3. Chandrashekar.M husband of the complainant became the owner of the house property under registered sale dated 23.03.2017.  Even though, there was a previous litigation in respect of this property, the vendor of this property had clear title.  The defendant in O.S.No.61/2001 T.M.Sundar Rajan failed to hand over the possession of the suit schedule property.

4. It is further case of the complainant that husband of complainant died on 03.09.2019 leaving beyond the complainant and two minor children.  The OP issued home guard + policy unique which covers critical illness, death due to accident, permanent total disability, education benefit, involuntary loss of job and coverage for home.  The husband of the complainant expired due to severe illness and dengue fever. 

5. It is further case of the complainant that even though she had submitted an application for closure of loan account and return of loan documents.  But, the banker failed to close the loan account and also failed to release the loan documents with No Objection Certificate.  Hence, this complaint.

6. After receipt of notice, OP appears and files version.  The prayer made in the complaint does not pertain to the policy mentioned in para 3 of the complaint.  The actual policy with regard to allegations made in the complaint pertain to home guard policy No.023539996 which was valid from 23.03.2017 to 22.03.2020 covering the building, educational benefits, accidental death, the accidental permanent total disability, involuntary loss of employment and critical illness.  The husband of the complainant availed benefit of loss of employment for Rs.1,48,416/- as per the eligibility.  The complainant has not made Bank as party and complaint is bad by non-joinder of necessary party.  The complaint is barred under Section 26 of C.P.Act, 1986.  According to the hospital records and death summary, the husband of the complainant was admitted due to breathlessness worsening on exertion, limb oedema and tiredness.  This complaint is a gross abuse of social welfare legislation. There is no deficiency of service.  Therefore, OP request to dismiss the complaint.

7. The complainant filed her affidavit evidence and relies on eleven documents.  The OP files affidavit evidence of Chief General Manager and relies on four documents. Heard the arguments of advocate for OP only.  No argument is advanced on behalf of the complainant. We also perused the record.

8. The following points arise for our consideration:-

1. Whether this District Commission had pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint on the date of filing the complaint?
2. Whether the complainant proves deficiency of service on the part of OP?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to reliefs mentioned in the complaint?
4. What order?

9. Our answers to the above points are as under:

       Point No.1:-  In the negative.

      Point Nos.2 and 3:- Do not survive for our   

      consideration

      Point No.4:-per final orders

REASONS

10. Point No.1: Even though complainant has filed against the OP TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd.,.  But, the complainant seeks relief against the OP to issue No due certificate in respect of loan account in the name of Chandrashekar.M and release the original documents.  But, complainant nowhere whispered that original documents are with OP and OP has supposed to issue No due certificate in respect of loan.  The allegations made in the complaint indicate that the complainant’s husband availed loan from Punjab National Housing Finance Ltd., but Punjab National Housing Finance Ltd., is no party to this proceedings.
11. According to the complainant, her husband availed loan of Rs.45,00,000/- from Punjab National Finance Ltd.,  Even though, complainant has not whispered sum assured amount. But, complainant has produced two documents.  The first document indicates the some insured amount is Rs.46,30,000/-. This is the value of service.  The second document i.e. policy for the period from 23.03.2017 to 22.03.2020 which is admitted by the OP in para 4 of the version for sum assured amount of Rs.35,15,720/-.  It is the value of the service.  On the second policy, the premium payable is Rs.1,27,350/-.  It mean the value of the service so far as the OP is concerned is more than Rs.20,00,000/-.  The complainant has not sought monetary reliefs against the OP insurance company.
12. It is a complaint under provision of Section 1986 of C.P.Act.  Therefore, it is necessary to refer Section 11(1) of C.P.Act, 1986 which read thus:-

11(1): Jurisdiction of the District Forum: (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed (does not exceed rupees five lakhs).  

13. As per the above provisions, if the sum assured as could be seen from two policies is taken into consideration in one policy sum assured is Rs.46,30,000/- and in another policy sum assured is Rs.35,15,720/- which is applicable in case of accident death or critical illness.  According to the complainant, her husband died due to illness.  The complainant own documents indicate that value of the policy i.e. service was more than Rs.20,00,000/- on the date of filing the complaint.  As per the Section 11(1) of C.P.Act, 1986, District Forum had pecuniary jurisdiction up to Rs.20,00,000/- only.  Under such circumstances, on the date of filing the complaint, the District Forum had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint on 24.02.2020.
14. This reasoning of us is supported by the decision of Hon’ble National Commission of Three Members Bench reported in 2018 (2) CPR 111 in the matter between Gurmukh Singh Vs. Greater Mohali Area Development Authority and another.  The Honb’le National Commission referring the earlier judgement of Larger Bench in Ambrish Kumar Shukla and others Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.,, wherein it was held that “the total value of goods are services provided, is to be taken into consideration for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of a Consumer Fora and not the partial amount deposited by an allottee.
15. It is true that C.P.Act, 2019 came into force w.e.f. 20.07.2020.  The question arises where this complaint can be continued under the new C.P.Act, 2019.  We are of the considered opinion that C.P.Act, 2019 has no retrospective effect and complaint cannot be continued before this Commission. This reasoning of us is supported by decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2021 (2) CPR 398 in the matter of Neena Aneja Vs. Jain Prakash Associates Ltd., dated 16^th March, 2021.  It  is relevant to refer to para 71 of the judgement which read thus:-

71. For the above reasons, we have come to the conclusion that proceedings instituted before the commencement of the Act of 2019 on 20 July 2020 would continue before the fora corresponding to those under the Act of 1986 (the National Commission, State Commissions and District Commissions) and not be transferred in terms of the pecuniary jurisdiction set for the fora established under the Act of 2019.  While allowing the appeals, we issue the following directions:

(i) The impugned judgement and order of the NCDRC dated 30 July 2020 and the review order dated 5 October 2020, directing a previously instituted consumer case under the Act of 1986 to be filled before the appropriate forum in terms of the pecuniary limits set under the Act of 2019, shall stand set aside;

(ii) As a consequence of (i) above, the national Commission shall continue hearing the consumer case instituted by the appellants;

(iii) All proceedings instituted before 20 July 2020 under the Act of 1986 shall continue to be heard by the fora corresponding to those designated under the Act of 1986 as explained above and not be transferred in terms of the new pecuniary limits established under the Act of 2019 and

iv) The respondent shall bear the costs of the appellant quantified at Rupees two lakhs which shall be payable within four weeks.

16. In view of above dictum, the then District Forum had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint and in view of the dictum of Supreme Court of India, such complaint cannot be continued under the new C.P.Act, 2019 before this Commission.
17. Point Nos.2 and 3:- It is settled preposition of law that when the authority has no pecuniary jurisdiction, it has no power to decide the case on merits.  These two points do not survive for consideration.  
18. Point No.4:- In view of discussion made in point No.1 and referred above, the complaint was not maintainable before this District Forum and it cannot be continued under the new C.P.Act, 2019 before this Commission.  The complaint requires to be return to the complainant for presentation before proper Consumer Commission.  Hence, we proceed to pass the following 

  O R D E R

1. The complaint is not maintainable before this Forum on the date of filing the complaint for want of pecuniary jurisdiction and such complaint cannot be continued under C.P.Act, 2019.
2. Return the complaint to the complainant with documents for presentation before Hon’ble State Commission for adjudication.   

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 11^th day of February, 2022)

Documents produced by the Complainant which are marked as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.11:

Documents produced by the OP which is marked as Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.4: