Heard Mr. D. Sarma, learned counsel, for the complainant. Also heard Mr. D. Deka, learned counsel for the opposite party insurance company.
The complainant a business firm insured his stock of all kinds of grocery items, stationery items, gift items, school items etc with the opposite party insurance company on payment of the premium of Rs. 7554/-. The policy covered the fire hazard which is specifically shown against the premium paid. On 19-03-2022, a fire incident took place at about 1.30 a.m. wherein as per the complaint petition almost all the stocks including various important documents were totally gutted. In support of the total damage, the complainant produced the certificate issued by the Fire Attendant dated 19-3-2022. The claim was lodged thereby claiming the sum assured under the policy and the claim is yet to be settled. Such being the position, being aggrieved, the complainant has filed this complaint with the following prayer.
“a. Rs. 53,44,200/- only against the policy number 322500/11/2022/185 dated 8-2-2022 including interest @ 9% per annum from 1-5-2022 to till realization. The total claim of interest is Rs. 7,33,985/- till 14-11-2023.
b. Rs. 5,00,000/- against compensation for causing mental agony, suffering and harassment.
c. Rs. 50,000/- against cost of litigation
d. Totaling Rs. 66,28,185/- only.”
The opposite party insurance company entered appearance and on 4-3-2024
filed written statement. In the written statement a preliminary objection is raised regarding taking cognizance of the complaint by this Commission. Considering the plea regarding the jurisdiction, we have taken up the issue today to decide it as a preliminary issue. It is submitted by Mr. Deka, learned counsel, for the opposite party insurance company that under Section 47 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, this Commission as the State Commission have the jurisdiction to entertain complaint where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration exceeds Rs. 1 crore but does not exceeds Rs. 10 crore which was subsequently amended vide Gazette Notification dated 30-12-2021 by the Central Government thereby reducing pecuniary jurisdiction from Rs. 1 crore to Rs. 50 lakh with maximum limit of Rs. 2 crore. In view of the said stipulation by the Act itself, this Commission cannot take cognizance of the complaint wherein the pecuniary jurisdiction paid is only Rs. 7554/-. Moreover, it is clearly mentioned under Section 47 (1) of the Act that the assessment of pecuniary jurisdiction of a complaint shall be done on the value of the goods or services paid as consideration.
In the present case in hand, as per Mr. Deka the policy was purchased for a sum of Rs. 7554/- as the premium against sum assured of Rs. 53,44,200/-. In support of the said submission, Mr. Deka relied the order dated 28-8-2020 in M/s Pyaridevi Chabiraj Steels Pvt. Ltd Vs National Insurance Company Ltd. wherein a similar issue was raised before the Hon’ble National Commission and vide the said order the Hon’ble National Commission held that as the total premium therein was far below than Rs. 10 crore (before amendment) , the Hon’ble National Commission had no jurisdiction to entertain the said complaint. In view of same, Mr. Deka prayed for decide the preliminary issue in favour of the opposite party insurance company.
Mr. Sarma on the other hand objected the said submission of Mr. Deka and submits that the complainant has claimed the total sum assured of Rs. 53,44,200/- which forms the relief of the complainant in the present complaint petition and in support of the said contention Mr. Sarma has relied a decision of the Hon’ble National Commission which was decided on 7-10-2016 in Ambrish Kumar Shukla Vs Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and another in Civil Appeal No. 4718 of 2022 in Alha G184 Owners Association Vs magnum International Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. wherein the decision in Ambrish Kumar Shukla (supra) was upheld. Accordingly, in terms of the said submission, Mr. Sarma prayed for deciding the preliminary issue against the opposite party insurance company.
We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel. If we look Section 47 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 read with amendment as per Gazette Notification dated 30-121-2021, this Commission can entertain complaint where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration exceeds Rs. 50 lakh but does not exceeds Rs. 2 crore. The insurance policy was purchased against premium of Rs. 7554/- and the sum assured is Rs. 53,44,200/- which covers the fire peril. As per the complaint on 19-3-2022 due to fire complete stock in store of the complainant were gutted, resulting total loss and as such, claimed total amount of sum assured which was lodged before the opposite party insurance company. However, the same was neither rejected nor settled by the opposite party insurance company and as such, this complaint petition is filed.
The submission of Mr. Deka finds support from the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in M/s Pyaridevi Chabiraj Steels Pvt. Ltd Vs National Insurance Company Ltd. (supra), wherein in the case of a fire hazard claim the jurisdiction will have to be assessed on the basis of the premium paid and not on the basis of sum assured. Accordingly, we allow the preliminary objection raised by Mr. Deka invoking the jurisdiction under Section 48 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Invoking the jurisdiction under Section 48 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, we accordingly transfer this complaint petition to the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tinsukia. The learned District Commission, Tinsukia shall take up the same for its disposal after renumbering the complaint petition as per due process of law. Both parties shall appear before the learned District Commission, Tinsukia on 15-07-2024.
Send the complaint petition along with a copy of this order to the learned District Commission , Tinsukia at the earliest.
