Hon’ble Mr. Kamal De, Presiding Member

Order No. 20

Date : 27.10.2021

The case of the complainant in short is that the complainant Firm has been engaged in the manufacturing of the fly ash bricks for which the complainant took an insurance policy from the OP insurance company for the coverage period from 28.01.2017 to mid-night of 27.01.2018 for covering risk of building, plant, machineries stocks etc. on payment of premium amount of Rs. 5780/- under a policy certificate being No. 0318021116-P114393675. On the intervening night of 24^th and 25^th day of July 2017 there was violent storm and as a result the factory wall of the complainant was damaged. The complainant submitted a claim demanding Rs. 2,50,000/- towards of cost of construction of damaged wall. Surveyor was also appointed by the OP insurance company. OP insurance company on 29.08.2017 repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the damage of the compound wall is due to heavy load created on of weak and sole bricks structure without support of RCC column and the rain is not covered under the policy.

It is stated that the OP repudiated the claim on flimsy ground and the gesture on the part of the OP constitutes a clear case of deficiency in service.

The complainant has prayed for Rs. 2,69,275/- along with interest from the OP along with compensation and other reliefs.

OP has contested the case in filing written version contending, inter-alia, that the complainant has no locus standi or cause of action against the OP and the above case is barred by law.

It is also alleged that the case should have filed before competent forum at Purulia instead before this Commission at Asansol.

It is also stated that the purported loss took place due to heavy rain on the night of 24^th and 25^th July, 2017. It is also stated that the entire building and wall was constructed in the year 2012 and without column.

It is also stated that policy covers the risks of loss due to flood, cyclone, storm etc. but not due to heavy rain.

It is denied that the complainant suffered loss or damage of the factory wall.

It is also alleged that the damage of wall was due to heavy load erected on weak and sole brick structure without appropriate support of RCC column.

                                               Point for determination

1. Whether the case is maintainable in State Commission on the question of pecuniary jurisdiction?

We have perused the petition of complaint, written version and other materials on record. Both sides have also adduced evidences in this case. 

It appears that the case was filed on 29.07.2019 i.e. after promulgation of Consumer Protection Act 2019. Consumer Protection Act 2019 came into force on 20.07.2019 Sec. 47 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 reads as follows :

            “Subject to the other provisions of this Act the State Commission shall have jurisdiction.

Where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration, exceeds rupees one crore, but does not exceed rupees ten crore”.

So, it is clear that for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Commission, State Commission or National Commission the value of goods or services paid as consideration alone has to be taken and not the value of the goods or services purchased.

Moreover, Hon’ble NCDRC in RP No. 1794 of 2017 M/S. Maharani of India VS Branch Manager United India Insurance Company Ltd. decided on 11.01.2018 (NC) has held the following

“When an insurance policy is taken by a person he pays a premium to the insurance for hiring or availing its service.

It is the premium paid by the insured to the insurer and not to extent of the sum insured which constitute the agreed consideration and, therefore, in my opinion it is the premium paid to the insurer which when added to the compensation claimed in the complaint would determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. The extent of the same insured would have no bearing on determination of the pecuniary jurisdiction of a Consumer Forum”.

Admittedly, the complainant has paid premium amount of Rs. 5780/- the complainant has also prayed for a relief to the tune of Rs. 2,69,275/- as it appears from the petition of complaint.

The premium amount paid to the insurer along with compensation claimed in the complaint falls far below the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission.

The extent of sum assured as stated by the complainant for a sum of Rs. 80 lakh has no bearing on determination of the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission.

We are constrained to hold that this Commission has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the case.

The Commission lacks in pecuniary jurisdiction for determination of the dispute.

Hence,

                                    ORDER

That the instant case be and the same is dismissed on contest being not maintainable in this Commission for dearth of pecuniary jurisdiction.

The premium paid to the insurer falls far below the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Commission.

We make no order as to cost.  

The complainant is at liberty to seek redressal of his grievances before the competent District Commission and for the purpose of computation of limitation may file an application in terms of observation made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works VS P.S.G. Industrial Institute reported in (1995) 3 SCC 583.

Let a copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.