Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/325/2017

Shaktiman Cement Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The New India Assurance Co.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Complainant Inperson

12 Sep 2017

ORDER

CC No.325 of 2017.

Shaktiman Cement Limited vs. NIA.

 

Present:-        Complainant in person.

    

Order:-

                    Today the case is fixed for consideration on the point of maintainablility.   At this stage, the complainant has made a statement in which he states that due to technical defect he wants to withdraw his present compliant with the liberty to file afresh before this Hon’ble Forum.

                        Heard.   The present complaint has been perused and after puersal, it has been found that the complainant is running a unit in the name and style of Shaktiman Cement Limited, having its Regd. Office M-31-A, near Police Station, Industrial Area, Yamuna Nagar, tehsil Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar and is also having its manufacturing unit at village Rajpura, Sadhaura, Distt. Yamuna Nagar and Shri Harvinder Oberoi is the Managing Director of the said company who is fully conversant with the day to day business of the company.  The said unit has been got insured with the respondents vide policy No.35350311150100000407 effective from 17.7.2015 to 16.7.2016 for a sum of Rs.2,00,00,000/-.(Rs. Two crores).

                      This Forum has got the pecuniary jurisdiction up to Rs.20 lacs as per section 11(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, whereas in the present complaint, the unit of the complainant has been insured for Rs.2 crores. 

 

                       At this juncture, it would be relevant to mention here that the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in “Ambrish Kumar Shukla & ors vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.”  decided on 7.10.2016 has held that the value of the goods and services is to be considered for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction. The Hon’ble National Commission has held as under:-

 

“It is the value of the goods or services, as the case may be, and not the value or cost of removing the deficiency in the service which is to be considered for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction”.

 

The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,

New Delhi in case titled as Sanjay Saini versus M/s Spaze Tower Pvt. Ltd. First Appeal No.472 of 2016 decided on 1.2.2017 has observed that the value of the flat was to be taken into consideration for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction.

                    Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission in several judgments, the value of the property, goods and services as the case may be, is to be considered for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum.

                      In the instant case, the unit is insured for an amount of Rs.2 crores which is beyond the pecuniary limit of Rs.20 lacs and as such this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint.  Consequently, the complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed in limni for want of pecuniary jurisdiction.  However, the complainant shall be at liberty to approach the appropriate authority having the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try this case.  File be consigned to the record-room after due compliance.

 

                                                                                                (SATPAL)

                                                                                                PRESIDENT,

                                                                                                12.9.2017.

 

(VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)                    (S.C.SHARMA)

MEMBER.                                                     MEMBER.