Order on application (Paper No. 507)
1. An application dated 11.08.2023 (Paper No. 507) was moved on behalf of opposite party No. 1 – insurance company, with a prayer that the instant consumer complaint be dismissed, being not maintainable.
2. In the application, it was stated that the value of the consideration paid in the instant case is Rs. 1,21,085/-, i.e., policy premium, which is less than the threshold limit of pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission, as stood on the date of filing of the consumer complaint, i.e., 29.12.2021. It was also stated that this Commission has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint in view of the mandate of Section 47(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which says that only the value of goods or services paid as consideration should be taken into account while determining the pecuniary jurisdiction and not the value of the goods or services and compensation. Therefore, on account of the aforesaid reason, the consumer complaint be dismissed, as not maintainable.
3. Objections dated 12.01.2024 (Paper Nos. 510 to 512) were submitted on behalf of the complainant against the aforesaid application, stating therein that the application is not legally maintainable and the same is an abuse of process of law. The application has been moved in order to delay the disposal of the present dispute. It was further stated that the averments made in the application are unwarranted, false, frivolous and specifically denied. The consumer complaint has not been filed solely against opposite party No. 1, but the same has been filed against the opposite parties, i.e., The New India Assurance Company Limited and Voith Hydro Pvt. Ltd. The complainant and the opposite party No. 2 entered into Agreement No. 05/GM(SHP)/08-09 dated 18.07.2008 and Agreement No. 06/GM(SHP)/08-09 dated 18.07.2008, wherein the complainant has already paid an amount of Rs. 7,63,90,488/- to the opposite party No. 2, which is also the consideration paid by the complainant. It has also been stated that the insurance policy issued by opposite party No. 1 was not obtained by the complainant and was an inter-se agreement between the opposite party No. 1 and opposite party No. 2. The consideration / premium paid by the complainant was Rs. 7,63,90,488/- and not Rs. 1,21,085/-, as alleged. The complainant is the beneficiary under the policy issued by opposite party No. 1 in favour of opposite party No. 2 and since the opposite party No. 1 has failed to indemnify the complainant for the loss occasioned, the complainant was forced to file the present consumer complaint. The consideration paid by the complainant was Rs. 7,63,90,488/-, which lies within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission as per Section 47(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. It is further stated that the present consumer complaint was filed by the complainant on 29.12.2021, prior to the implementation of Notification dated 30.12.2021 and on the date of filing of the consumer complaint, the State Commission had pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration, exceeds rupees one crore, but does not exceed rupees ten crore. Therefore, the application moved on behalf of opposite party No. 1 is liable to be dismissed with costs.
4. No objections were submitted on behalf of opposite party No. 1 against the aforesaid application.
5. We have heard learned counsel Sh. J.K. Jain along with Sh. Vaibhav Jain, Advocate on behalf of the complainant; learned counsel Smt. Anjali Gusain on behalf of opposite party No. 1 and learned counsel Sh. Shivendra Singh Negi on behalf of opposite party No. 2, on the application and perused the record.
6. It is an admitted position that the amount of premium paid in the present case to the opposite party No. 1 was Rs. 1,21,085/-, as would be evident from the copy of insurance policy (Paper No. 26). Section 47(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 reads as under:
“47. Jurisdiction of State Commission – (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the State Commission shall have 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:
Provided that where the Central Government deems it necessary so to do, it may prescribe such other value, as it deems fit.”
7. 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.
8. Thus, in view of above, on the date of filing of the consumer complaint, i.e., 29.12.2021, 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 and is also the admitted position that the amount of premium paid was Rs. 1,21,085/-, as is mentioned in the insurance policy, 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. The amount of Rs. 7,63,90,488/- allegedly paid by the complainant to the opposite party No. 2, can not be taken as the value of the goods or services paid as consideration paid to opposite party No. 1, for the simple reason that the opposite party No. 2 has got no concern whatsoever with the alleged amount paid by the complainant. The opposite party No. 2 in para 17 of its written statement has specifically stated that the opposite party No. 2 is not in receipt of INR 6,51,23,766/- and even the figure of INR 7,63,90,488/- is incorrect, as per the record. The complainant has not claimed any relief against opposite party No. 2 and has impleaded the opposite party No. 2 as a proforma opposite party.
9. 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.
10. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that as the value of consideration paid is only Rs. 1,21,085/-, the State Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the present consumer complaint and the same is liable to be dismissed.
11. For the reasons aforesaid, the application (Paper No. 507) moved on behalf of opposite party No. 1 is hereby allowed and the consumer complaint is dismissed, being not maintainable before the State Commission. However, the complainant, if 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.
12. 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.
13. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Order.
