Amritpal Singh Vs. The National Insurance Company Ltd and Others

Present: Sh. Nitin Jain, Adv Counsel for the complainant.

Sh. Darshan Singh, Adv Counsel for the OP No.1 to 3.

1. Through this order, we are going to dispose of an application filed by the applicant/OP with the request to consider the pecuniary jurisdiction in the present complaint and also the word used “fraud” in the complaint/legal notice.

2. Brief facts of the application are that the above mentioned complaint is pending before this Forum and fixed for reply/written statement of the OP. But the applicant/OP has filed the instant application before going to merits of the case. The complainant purchased an insurance policy bearing No.406013311510000342 for his truck/tipper bearing registration No.PB08-CH-9190 and policy was valid up to 28.05.2016 and vehicle IDV of Rs.17,50,000/-. The vehicle was snatched/stolen on 06.11.2015 at Jalandhar-Pathankot Road, opposite DAV University, Jalandhar and Kulwinder Singh S/o Samman Singh R/o Village Barrar, PO Ghuman, Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur, filed the complaint and whereby claiming Rs.17,50,000/- as IDV of the insurance alongwith interest @ 18% and compensation. The pecuniary jurisdiction of District Forum is up to Rs.20,00,000/-, as per Section 11 of 'The Consumer Protection Act', but if, the amount of interest @ 18% as claimed by the complainant in the complaint is calculated, which comes to Rs.4,72,500/- and insurance amount is Rs.17,50,000/- and further claimed a compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.22,000/- and it comes to Rs.22,94,500/-, means it goes above the pecuniary jurisdiction of District Forum, which is up to Rs.20,00,000/- and as such,the complaint of the complainant may be dismissed, after allowing the instant application.

3. Further alleged that the complainant has also taken a plea of fraud in the complaint/legal notice and whenever, such like plea is taken, then Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the said claim and therefore, the complaint of the complainant is also liable to be dismissed on this score.

4. Notice of the application was given to the respondent/complainant, who filed a reply and contested the application by taking preliminary objection that the purpose of the OP is to file the application under reply to delay the proceedings of the present complaint and to cause loss to the complainant and its also shows that the intention of the OPs is only to harass to their customers and further averred that the OP well within the knowledge of this fact that this Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction. All cases cannot be put into a strait jacket formula, to add interest claimed, to determine pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum. The interest, which is a discretionary relief, cannot be added to the value of the goods or services, as the case may be, for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum. As per provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 value of the goods purchased or services plus compensation claimed needs to be added only, for determining pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum. On merits, the pendency of the complaint is admitted but the allegations as made in the application are categorically refuted and further submitted that the application of the applicant/OP is without merit and the same may be dismissed.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.

6. First of all, we have to go through the Prayer Clause of the complaint to clarify itself that what relief has been sought by the complainant in the main complaint, obviously the complainant has claimed the insured amount of the vehicle i.e. Rs.17,50,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of snatched i.e. 06.11.2015 till date and further demanded compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.22,000/-.

7. Now question remains, whether the interest demanded by the complainant @ 18% is to be calculated in the amount claimed by the complainant or not. For that purpose, the counsel for the applicant/OP referred a judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission, cited in 2017 (1) CPJ National Commission, title “Ambrish Kumar Shukla and Others Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd”, wherein their Lordship categorically held that in order to determine pecuniary jurisdiction, interest has to be taken into account and on the basis of aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission, the counsel for the applicant/OP contended that the instant application may be accepted and complaint of the complainant may be dismissed for want of pecuniary jurisdiction. The argument of the learned counsel for the applicant/OP is refuted by the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant by submitting that the interest claimed by the complainant in complaint cannot be added to the value of the goods or services because granting of interest is a discretionary relief of the Court and further submitted that the instant application filed by the applicant/OP is only to delay the proceeding of the instant case and in support of this submission, the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant made a reliance upon a pronouncement of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh decided in a complaint case No.11 of 2017, date of institution 06.01.2017 and date of decision 05.05.2017, title “Shruti Chhabra and Others. Vs. M/s Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt. Ltd” and further referred an other pronouncement of Hon'ble National Commission, cited in 2003(2) CPJ 81, title “Shahbad Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd” and further submitted that in view of the aforesaid judgments, the application of the applicant/OP is without merit and the same may be dismissed with costs.

8. We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties and also gone through the law, cited by both the parties and find that the judgments referred by the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant (Supra) 2003(2) CPJ 81 and complaint No.11 of 2017, title “Shruti Chhabra Vs. M/s Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt. Ltd, no doubt in both the aforesaid judgments, it is categorically held that the claim interest is not to be added in the value for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Forum, admittedly the State Commission, UT, Chandigarh also made reliance upon a pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, title “New India Assurance Co. Ltd Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt Ltd”. But we think in order to apply the judgments, we follow the criteria to accept the latest judgment of the Higher Bench and accordingly, if we see the judgments referred by the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant, are decided by the Hon'ble National Commission, in the year 2003 as well as other judgment of the State Commission, U.T., Chandigarh, but the judgment referred by the learned counsel for the applicant/OP is latest one, which is decided by Hon'ble National Commission on 07.10.2016, the said judgment has been decided by Full Bench i.e. three judges and accordingly being a latest judgment, which is also relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as mentioned in Para No.14 (Issue No.2), the citation is 2004 (V) SCC 65 Supreme Court, title “Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Balbir Singh”.

9. In view of the above detailed discussion, it is clear that as per the latest judgment of the National Commission, the interest claimed by the complainant is to be calculated. So, accordingly, in this complaint, the complainant claimed interest @ 18% per annum from 06.11.2015 and if calculated till the date of filing the complaint, then it comes to Rs.4,72,500/- and if this interest included in the IDV insurance of vehicle, compensation and litigation expenses, then the total amount comes to more than Rs.20,00,000/-, which is beyond the jurisdiction of this Forum. We like to make it here one point clear that at the time of filing the complaint, the same was admitted being having a pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction because at that time, the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission (Supra) 2017 (1) CPJ was not in the knowledge of this Forum and now, the said judgment came to our notice and accordingly, we are of the considered opinion that this Forum is having no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint having value more than Rs.20,00,000/-.

10. So for the other allegation made by the applicant/OP that the word fraud is used in the complaint/legal notice, no doubt whenever plea, fraud is taken by the complainant in the complaint, then the said complaint is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum rather the jurisdiction to decide a fraud case is only with the Civil Court, but we have gone through the entire facts of the complaint and find that there is no word used by the complainant of a fraud, though the complainant has used the said word in the legal notice, but we are not concerned with the legal notice, we are to see the contents of the complaint. So, accordingly, this submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is not sustainable.

11. In view of the above detailed discussion, we come to conclusion that there are much substances in the argument put forth by the learned counsel for the applicant/OP and therefore, the application of the applicant/OP is accepted and complaint of the complainant is ordered to return to the complainant with a direction to file a complaint before the appropriate Forum having a jurisdiction. Copies of the order be supplied to the complainant free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Karnail Singh

01.11.2017 Member President