1. ON a preliminary objection taken in the written statement about the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission to entertain the complaint, we are of the view that the complaint deserves to be returned to the complainant for being filed before the District Forum concerned.
2. THE Consumer Protection Act provides three-tier system for adjudicating the consumer disputes. At the root level, District Forums are constituted under Section 10 of the Consumer Protection Act. District Forums are entitled to entertain consumer disputes, pecuniary value of which is less than Rs. 5 lacs. At State level, State Commissions have been constituted under Section 16 of the Consumer Protection Act and the jurisdiction of the State Commission to entertain the complaints is where value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds Rs. 5 lacs but does not exceed Rs. 20 lacs. At the national level, National Commission has been constituted under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act wherein complaints of value of more than Rs. 20 lacs can be instituted. THE appellate and revisional powers are also provided under the Consumer Protection Act against orders of such of the agencies established under the Act. An appeal against the order of the District Forum lies before the State Commission in original matters under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act. THE State Commission has also revisional jurisdiction under Section 17(b) of the Consumer Protection Act and thereafter matter can be adjudicated before the National Commission. Likewise against the original orders passed by the State Commission directly appeal lies before the National Commission under Section 19 of the Act. This would show that ordinarily the complaint where value of the dispute is less than Rs. 5 lacs is to be instituted before the District Forum. By joining different causes of action, value of each being less than Rs. 5 lacs, the complaint cannot be instituted before the State Commission to by- pass the District Forums as valuable/ight of one appeal/revision is taken away. Keeping in view the aforesaid position, the facts of the case in hand in brief can be noticed.
M/s. Windsor Exports, New Delhi, the complainant had taken Marine Open Policy in the sum of Rs. 5 crores from United India Insurance Company covering risk of articles to be despatched from the premises of the complainant Company to anywhere in the country and abroad. Vide three separate consignments, goods were sent. The dispute having occurred regarding loss/damage of the goods, three separate claims were lodged with the Insurance Company, the opposite party. Separate Surveyors were appointed by the Insurance Company who made separate reports. Not satisfied, the complainant approached the Commission with the complaint. In para 15 of the complaint, the details of such claims are given. Para 15 reads as under :
"That the petitioner claims US $ 1107.11, US $ 2186.34 and US $ 8513.97 which comes to Rs. 5,01,815.35 ps at the rate of Rs. 42,50 ps as on today on account of Claim Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and interest to the tune of Rs. 65,900.74 ps @ 24% on the above amount. Complainant is further entitled to the damages to the tune of Rs. 3.00 lacs on account of suffering of losses during the period in question and also Rs. 20,000/- per claim for unnecessarily wasting the precious time of the complainant firm. The claim in all involved in the present complaint amounts to Rs. 9,27,716.09 ps. Further the complainant is entitled to interest at the rate of 24% from the date of complaint till payment. Since the complainant purchased the insurance policy, therefore, the present complaint is competent on behalf of the complainant so as to cover its all types of risks."
From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that now the complainant claims consolidated amount of more than Rs. 9 lacs in the complaint against the Insurance Company in respect of three consignments of the value of US $ 1107.11, US $ 2186.34 and US $ 8513.97 @ Rs. 42.50, the exchange rate. The total amount was stated to be above Rs. 5 lacs. Keeping in view the other items of claim as referred to above, separately for the three transactions referred to above, the claim of each of the transaction would be less than Rs. 5 lacs. Thus, if the complainant have three separate complaints relating to three causes referred to above, he had to approach the District Forum in three separate complaints. By consolidating the causes (mis-joinder of causes of action), the present complaint was filed.
3. THE District Forums constituted under the Consumer Protection Act being an agency at the root level even if causes of action having been joined and consolidated value of each cause having not increased Rs. 5 lacs, the District Forum can entertain such a complaint as even on bifurcation of the causes, it would be the same District Forum who would have jurisdiction to entertain the complaints but the same principle cannot be applied to the cases of the State Commission entertaining the complaint, in none of the items of claim as referred in para 15 of the complaint, it can be said that State Commission could individually entertain the complaint. Had other causes been joint, a direction could be given to the complainant to restrict the claim in the present complaint only to the cause which was within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission for adjudication and with regard to the other causes the complainant could be left to approach the District Forum concerned as is in the present case. None of the three causes mentioned in para 15 of the complaint as referred to above could be individually entertained by the State Commission, thus, there is no option but to return the complaint to be filed before the District Forum concerned. By consolidating such causes, jurisdiction cannot be bestowed on the State Commission. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is ordered to be returned to the complainant to be filed before the appropriate District Forum separately for the three causes mentioned above as the same is not entertainable for want of pecuniary jurisdiction in this Commission. Complaint returned to complainant.
