STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

BIHAR, PATNA

(Appeal No.102 of 2023)

Mamta Devi, aged about 35 years, Female, Wife of Balram Kumar Jaiswal, Resident of Tiwari Tola, Ward No.33, Police Station Saharsa, District- Saharsa.

                                                                                                                                 ……………….. Complainant/Appellant

                                                                                                        Versus

1. The Branch Manager, Chola Mandalam, M.s. General Insurance Company Ltd., 3^rd Floor, I.D. Complex, West Boring Canal Road, Plot No.166, Patna (Bihar).
2. The General Manager, Chola Mandalam Investment of Finance Company Limited (CIFCL) Dare House, First Floor, Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, Road, Chennai (Tamilnadu).

                                                                                                                           ………………….. Opposite parties/Respondents

    BEFORE:

                             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar, President

Mr. Ram Prawesh Das, Member

Md. Shamim Akhtar, Member

ORDER

Date: 03.07.2023

Per: Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar, President

           Present appeal has been filed on behalf of the Complainant/ Appellant for setting aside the judgment and order dated 27.02.2023 passed in complaint case no.66/2021 passed by the Learned District Consumer Commission, Saharsa, whereby and where under the learned  Forum has dismissed the complaint case for want of pecuniary jurisdiction.  

           Briefly stated the facts of the case is that complainant runs a grocery Shop in name and style of Mamta Trading situated as Tiwary Tola, Saharsa being G.S.T No. 10BIVPBO675 E1ZJ. 

          On 29.10.2020 in the night due to Short Circuit Fire broke out in the Shop of Complainant. Officer-in-Charge of Police Station  as well as Fire service were immediately informed upon which Fire tender arrived and Fire was extinguished, however goods worth of Rs.55-56 lacs were destroyed in Fire.

          Stock kept in complainant’s Shop/Godown were insured by Chola Mandalam General Insurance Co. Ltd.  for sum assured amount of Rs.61 lacs which was valid for the period from 20.01.2020 to 19.01.2021.

          Surveyor / loss assessor was also appointed by the Insurance Company who visited the spot and made assessment/loss suffered by Complainant.

           Complainant furnished all information and submitted documents as demanded by the Insurance Company but her claim was not settled as such complainant filed complaint case for payment of insured amount with interest as well as adequate compensation for physical and mental harassment and cost of litigation.  

          On notice opposite party appeared and filed its written statement stating that Insurance Company appointed surveyor/loss assessor who assessed loss in Fire to be Rs.7,60,190/- in its report dated 30.06.2021 and same was paid by cheque to complainant on 23.03.2022.

           Opposite party, Insurance Company raised preliminary objection with respect to maintainability of the complaint case as complainant has claimed Rs.60,000/- as insured amount and Rs.20,000/- as compensation for physical, mental harassment and pecuniary loss suffered by her, however the pecuniary jurisdiction of District Consumer Commission is less than Rs.50 lacs as such District Commission has no pecuniary jurisdiction over the subject matter and dismissed the claim case as not maintainable.

          The pecuniary jurisdiction of complaint case under the Consumer Protection Act 2019 made effective from July 2020 is to be decided on the basis of consideration paid and not the claim made. In case of  insurance claim pecuniary jurisdiction is decided on the basis of Total premium paid and not on the  basis of sum assured amount or the valuation of claim.

           In present case total premium paid is Rs.29,999/- National Commission in case of Vetrivel Explosives Private Ltd.  Vs. New India Insurance Company (2023 (1) 204 (NC) in paragraph no. 3 & 5 has held as follows:-

  “ This Commission in Consumer Case No.833 of 2020 (M/s Pyaridevi Chabiraj Steels Pvt. Ltd. V. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & 3Ors.) decided on 28.08.2020 had considered the question of  pecuniary jurisdiction in respect of the Insurance Policy obtained by a person and had come to the conclusion that the amount of premium paid will only determine the value of consideration paid irrespective of the amount of insurance cover.”

 “ In this view of the matter, the fact remains that the premium, which has been paid, has to be treated as consideration, which is below Rs.2.00 Crors. Therefore, this Commission does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.”

           In said view of the matter order dated 27.02.2023 is set aside and the complaint case is directed to be decided on merit.

       With aforesaid direction and observation the appeal is allowed and remanded to the Learned District Consumer Commission, Saharsa.

       A copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost as mandated by the C.P. Act 2019. Order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the State Commission. A copy of order be transmitted to concern District Consumer Commission by E-mail.  

          Let the file be consigned in the record room along with copy of this order.

Md. Shamim Akhtar                                              Ram Prawesh Das                   Sanjay Kumar, J     

      Member                                                                  Member                                 President

Mukund