1. Delay condoned.
2. The present First Appeal has been filed by the Appellant/Complainant u/s 51 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter to be referred to as “the Act”) challenging the legality of the Order dated 12.10.2022 passed by the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Shimla (hereinafter to be referred to as “the State Commission”) in Miscellaneous Application No. 320 of 2022 filed in Consumer Complaint No.15 of 2022. By the Impugned Order, the State Commission while allowing the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Respondents has dismissed the Complaint filed by the Appellant/Complainant for want of pecuniary jurisdiction and the matter was directed to be sent to the District Commission at Shimla for further adjudication in accordance with law.
3. The brief facts of the case as narrated in the Complaint are that one Shri Narender Sharma, husband of the Complainant/Appellant herein purchased a Life Insurance Policy for a sum of ₹1,24,00,000/- covering the risk against critical illnesses, having a 100% benefit of sum insured and ₹13,87,011/- against major surgical procedure, for the period from 26.07.2019 to 25.07.2024 from the ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd./Respondent herein (hereinafter to be referred to as the Insurance Company) by paying the premium amount of ₹2,45,569/-.
04. During the validity of the policy, the husband of the Complainant became the victim of COVID 19 and was admitted in Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh on 25.04.2021. Unfortunately, he expired in the said Hospital on 01.05.2021. The Complainant, being the legal heir and nominee of her deceased husband submitted a claim for payment under the policy taken by her husband for payment of the sum insured before the Respondents Insurance Company. However, vide its email dated 16.09.2021, the Insurance Company repudiated the claim on the ground that as per Medical Certificate, the cause of death of her husband was due to Hypoxia with Cardiac Arrest occurring due to COVID 19 and there was no evidence in any of the “Critical Illnesses” defined and covered under the Policy in question. In the said factual matrix, the Complainant filed the Consumer Complaint No. 15 of 2022 before the State Commission, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent Insurance Company and seeking a direction to them to pay the sum insured i.e. ₹1,24,00,000/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of death of her husband till payment and compensation of ₹5,00,000/- as well as costs of ₹2,00,000/-.
05. During the pendency of the Complaint before the State Commission, the Respondent Insurance Company filed the Miscellaneous Application no.320/2022 under Section 47 (1) (a) (i) of the Act read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 questioning the maintainability of the Complaint for want of pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission. In the application, it was contended that in the present case, the value of the goods or services paid as consideration was ₹2,45,569/- i.e. the premium paid for Policy for 5 years from 26.7.2019 to 25.7.2024 and as such the State Commission did not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint. In support of the said contention, the reliance was placed by the Respondent Insurance Company on the decision of this Commission in the cases Pyaridevi Chabiraj Steels Private Limited Vs National Insurance Company and others (Consumer Complaint No. 833 of 2020 decided on 28.08.2020) and Smt. Ushma Sharma Vs. RBL Bank – (Consumer Complaint No. 07 of 2022 decided on 2.05.2022)
05. The M.A. No. 320 of 2022 was resisted by the Complainant by filing reply and stating that in the present case the value of the goods is ₹1,24,00,000/-and as such the State Commission has the jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint. Further, it is contended that till the Written Version is filed to the Complaint, no interim application can be permitted to be filed on the issue which has not been raised in the Written Version in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sathyanath & Anr. Vs. Sarojmani (Civil Appeal No. 3680/2022 decided on 06.05.2022).
06. On appreciation of the rival submissions made by the Parties, the State Commission by its Order dated 12.10.2022, disposed off the Missellaneous Application by observing as under:-
“ In view of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble National Commission in case titled as Ms. Pyaridevi Chabiraj Steels Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd., decided on 28.04.2020, the present application is allowed and the Consumer Complaint No. 15/2022 is sent to learned District Commission Shimla for further adjudication in accordance with law. Learned District Commission on receipt of the copy of order and case file is directed to issue fresh notices to the parties and thereafter to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. Application is disposed of accordingly.”
07. Being aggrieved by the Order passed by the State Commission, Complainant has preferred the present First Appeal before this Commission.
08. Heard Dr. Lalit Kumar Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, perused the Impugned Order dated 12.10.2022 passed by the State Commission, the grounds taken in the Memo of Appeal and the documents filed along with it.
09. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that the State Commission has erred in law in dismissing the Complaint on the ground of not having pecuniary jurisdiction as contemplated u/s 47(1)(a)(i) of the Act. According to him, under sub-clause (i) of Clause (a) of sub-Section (1) of the Section 47 of the Act, the value of the goods or services paid as consideration will also include the value of the services and if that is included the value of the services paid as consideration exceeds ₹50,00,000/- and, therefore, the Complaint was maintainable before the State Commission. He relied upon the provisions of the Court Fees Act, 1870 wherein under Section 7 of the said Act, the computation of fee payable in certain suits have been provided and the Court Fees is to be determined as per Schedule I and II as the case may be. Placing reliance upon the judgment passed by the Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, “the Bihar State Commission”) in the case of Ragini Kumari Vs. Aegon Life Insurance Co. Ltd. – IV (2022) CPJ 84 (Bihar), he urged that if the provisions of Section 4 of the Suit Valuation Act, 1887 (hereinafter to be referred to as “the Act 1887”) and Section 7 of the Court Fees Act 1870 (hereinafter to be referred to as “the Act 1870”) are applied then the Complaint filed by the Appellant before the State Commission was maintainable. He has relied upon the paragraph Nos. 4 to 8 of the Order passed by the Bihar State Commission in Ragini Kumari’s case (supra). For ready reference the paragraph nos. 4 to 8 of the said judgment are reproduced as under:-
“4. Record was perused. Since the premium amount (consideration) has been returned by the O.P., so the point to be considered is, whether can this complaint be admitted for trial before the State Commission in the light of Section 47(1)(a) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which is as follows:
Section-47 jurisdiction of State Commission-(1) subject to the other provision of this Act, the state Commission shall have jurisdiction-
(a) to entertain--
(i) Complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration, exceeds Rs. One crore, but does not exceed Rs. Ten crore.
Provided that where the Central Government deems it necessary so to do, it may prescribe such other value, as it deems feet;
5. Central Government has again revised the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Commissions, by the Consumer Protection (Pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Commission, the State Commission and the National Commission) Rules 2021, whereby jurisdiction of the State Commission starts, where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration exceeds fifty lacs, but does not exceed Rs. Two crore. Hon'ble National Commission in the case M/s. Pyaridevi Chabiraj Steels v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Others, has held that
".........value of the goods or services paid as consideration has to be taken and not the value of goods or services purchased/taken".
Further this Commission has also taken the same view in M/s. Gaurav Foods & Cool Connections Pvt. Ltd.
6. We respectfully differ with the opinion of the Hon'ble National Commission. Section 4 of the Suit Valuation Act, 1887, in conjugation with Section 7 of the Court Fee Act, 1870, covers the entire gamut of the mode for valuing a suit for the purpose of determination of jurisdiction. Section 4 of the Suits Valuation Act is reproduced here:
"S. 4-Valuation of relief in certain suits relating to land not to exceed the value of land - Where a suit mentioned in the Court Fee Act 1870, Section 7, paragraph iv, or Schedule II, Article 17, relates to land or an interest in land of which the value has been determined by rules under the last foregoing Section, the amount at which for purposes of Section, the amount at which for purposes of jurisdiction the relief sought in the suit is valued shall not exceed the value of the land or interest as determined by those rules."
In old Consumer Protection Act of 1986, Section 17 elucidates the jurisdiction of the State Commission, which runs as follows:-
"Jurisdiction of the State Commission--(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the State Commission shall have jurisdiction--
(a) to entertain--
(i) complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds rupees twenty lakh but does not exceed rupees one crore;"
But, while enacting new Consumer Protection Act, 2019, our Legislature decided to omit the word 'and compensation' and added after 'services' the words 'paid as consideration,' for the purposes of deciding the jurisdiction of the Commission. Now the question arises, where there is no paid consideration, then what will be the criterion for deciding the jurisdiction?
7. In the case in hand, consideration has been returned from the opposite party. Complainant has brought this case for the payment of insured amount rupees one crore, so, it will be the value of relief of the case. According to Section 4 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887, for the purposes of jurisdiction of the Court, "value of the relief" sought is to be considered. Before coming into force of new Act, compensation along with value of the goods or services claimed was to be considered for the purposes of jurisdiction. Now compensation has been excluded. So, only the relief for value of goods or services paid consideration would decide the jurisdiction. Since, here in present case, consideration has been returned, so jurisdiction would be decided on the basis of relief claimed for sum assured (value of goods), i.e. rupees one crore, which Insurance Company had promised to make payment in case of death of the insured.
8. Thus, in our considered view, this complaint case is maintainable before the State Commission, because, the value of relief sought is rupees one crore, which is more than fifty lakhs.”
10. The submission made by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant is wholly mis-conceived. The provisions of the Act 1887 and the Act 1870 are not applicable to the Complaint filed under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act as it would be clear from the reading of the provisions of the Act 1887 and the Act 1870 that they apply to the Suit and not the Complaint filed under the provision of the Act. Under Section 34 of the Act, the District Commission has been given jurisdiction to entertain the Complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration does not exceed ₹50,00,000/- from 30.12.2021 (prior to it, it was one crore under the Act 2019). Likewise, under Section 47 of the Act, the State Commission has been given jurisdiction to entertain the Complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration, exceeds ₹50,00,000/- but does not exceeds ₹2,00,000,00/- from 30.12.2021 (Prior to it, it was Rupees one Crore but does not exceed Rupees Ten Crore). Similarly, under Section 58 of the Act, the National Commission has been given jurisdiction to entertain the Complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration exceed ₹2,00,00,000/- from 30.12.2021 (Earlier, it was Rupees Ten Crore).
11. Under sub-Section (2) of the Section 35 of the Act, the Complaint filed under sub-Section (1) of Section 35 has to be accompanied with such fee and payable in such manner, including electronic form, as may be prescribed. The provisions of Section 35 of the Act has been made applicable to the State Commission vide Section 49 of the Act and to the National Commission vide Section 59 of the Act. Under the Consumer Protection (Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions) Rules 2020 (hereinafter to be referred to as “the Rules 2020”) framed by the Central Government, the fee for making complaints have been prescribed under the Rule 7 of the Rules 2020. For ready reference, the relevant Sections 35 (2), 49, 59 of the Act and Rule 7 of the Rules 2020 are reproduced below:-
“35(2) Every complaint filed under sub-section (1) shall be accompanied with such fee and payable in such manner, including electronic form, as may be prescribed;
49. (1) The provisions relating to complaints under sections 35, 36, 37, 38 and 39 shall, with such modifications as may be necessary, be applicable to the disposal of complaints by the State Commission;
59. (1) The provisions relating to complaints under sections 35, 36, 37, 38 and 39 shall, with such modifications as may be considered necessary, be applicable to the disposal of complaints by the National Commission;
“Rule 7 of Rules 2020:
“ Fee for making complaints.-(1) Every complaint filed under sub-section (1) of section 35 or under sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 47 or under sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 58 shall be accompanied by a fee, as specified in the table given below, in the form of crossed Demand Draft drawn on a nationalised bank or through a crossed Indian Postal Order in favour of the President of the District Commission or the Registrar of the State Commission or the Registrar of the National Commission, as the case may be, and payable at the respective place where the District Commission, State Commission or the National Commission is situated, or through electronic mode as per arrangement made by the Commission concerned.”
12. From the reading of the aforesaid provisions, it is absolutely clear that the fee is payable on the amount of value of goods or services paid as consideration and not on the value of the goods or services. This Commission in the case of M/s. Pyaridevi Chabiraj Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. – (Consumer Case No. 833 of 2020 decided on 28..08.2020) has considered the question for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of the National Commission under the Act and has held that where the consideration paid is less than Ten Crore (on that time when the Complaint was filed), the National Commission did not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint and accordingly dismissed the Complaint. The relevant paragraph Nos. 5 to 11 of the said decision, are reproduced as under:-
“5. In the present case a preliminary point arises as to how this Consumer Complaint is maintainable before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as “the National Commission”) because the value of the consideration paid in the present case i.e. premium paid for taking the Insurance Policies was only Rs.3,20,525/- and Rs.1,23,037/- the total of which comes to Rs.4,43,562/- (Rupees Four Lac forty three thousand five hundred and sixty two only), which is less than the consideration paid of more than Rs.10,00,00,000/- (Rupees Ten crores) as provided under Section 58 (1) (a) (i) of the Act of 2019.
6. Mr. Joy Saha, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the Complainant submitted that under Section 21 (a) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1986”) the National Commission had the jurisdiction to entertain Complaints where the value of the good or services and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One crore), whereas under Section 58 (1) (a) (i) of the Act of 2019 the National Commission has jurisdiction to entertain Complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration exceeds Rs.10,00,00,000/- (Rupees Ten crores). According to the learned Senior Counsel only the value of the compensation claimed has been omitted from Section 58 (1) (a) (i) of the Act of 2019 and the present Consumer Complaint is maintainable and this Commission will have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the present Complaint. He further submitted that a liberal view should be taken as if “the word value of consideration paid” is taken to be the amount paid for the purchase of goods or services by a Consumer then even though Insurance Policy taken by the Consumer be above ₹10,00,00,000/- (Rupees Ten crore), factually there will no instance of making payment by any Consumer premium of more than ₹10,00,00,000/- (Rupees Ten crore) and if such a strict view is taken then the claims regarding Insurance will have to be necessarily filed either before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission or before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and not before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which will create great hardship to such Consumers.
7. The submission made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Complainant cannot be accepted. It is no doubt true that under the Act of 1986, pecuniary jurisdiction was to be determined by taking the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed. Meaning thereby that the value of the goods or services as also the compensation is to be added to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the National Commission has the jurisdiction or not. This law was laid down by a three Member Bench of this Commission in Ambrish Kumar Shukla & 21 Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, I (2017) CPJ I (NC). Thus in the Act of 1986 it was “the value of the goods or services and the compensation claimed” taken into consideration while determining the pecuniary jurisdiction. For example, if a person has agreed to purchase a Flat/ Apartment/ Plot for about Rs.60,00,000/- and he is claiming refund as also compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- then the value will exceed Rs.1,00,00,000/- and the Consumer Complaint has to be filed before the National Commission. Similar, would be the case of taking Insurance Policy of above Rs.1,00,00,000/-or may be below Rs.1,00,00,000/- but taking into consideration the premium paid and the compensation claimed if the value exceeds Rs.1,00,00,000/- the Consumer Complaint has to be filed before the National Commission.
8. It appears that the Parliament, while enacting the Act of 2019 was conscious of this fact and to ensure that Consumer should approach the appropriate Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission whether it is District, State or National only the value of the consideration paid should be taken into consideration while determining the pecuniary jurisdiction and not value of the goods or services and compensation, and that is why a specific provision has been made in Sections 34 (1), 47 (1) (a) (i) and 58 (1) (a) (i) providing for the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the National Commission respectively.
9. For ready reference the provisions of Sections 34 (1), 47 (1) (a) (i) and 58 (1) (a) (i) of the Act of 2019 are reproduced below:
“34. (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration does not exceed one crore rupees:”
“47. (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the State Commission shall have jurisdiction—
(a) to entertain—
(i) Complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration, exceeds rupees one crore, but does not exceed rupees ten crore:”
“58. (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the National Commission shall have jurisdiction—
(a) to entertain—
(i) complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration exceeds rupees ten crore:”
10. From a reading of the aforesaid provisions it is amply clear that for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Commission, State Commission or National Commission the value of the goods or services paid as consideration alone has to be taken and not the value of the goods or services purchased/ taken. Therefore, we are of the view that the provision of Section 58 (1) (a) (i) of the Act of 2019 are very clear and does not call for any two interpretations
11. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that as the value of consideration paid by the Complainant is only Rs.4,43,562/- (Rupees four lac forty three thousand five hundred and sixty two only), which is not above Rs.10,00,00,000/- (Rupees Ten crore), the National Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the present Consumer Complaint and it is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable.”
13. In another case in Atul Kumar Jain & Anr. Vs. Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. – (Consumer Case No. 77 of 2022 decided on 19.05.2022), this Commission had held that if the consideration paid is less than ₹2,00,00,000/-, then the Complaint is not maintainable before this Commission. The Order dated 19.05.2022 is extracted as under:-
“ Mr. Atul Kumar Jain and Ms. Aneeta Jain have approached this Commission by filing this Consumer Complaint against M/s Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. seeking following reliefs:
a) Direct the Opposite Party to refund Rs.41,47,216/- forfeited as earnest money out of a total paid amount of Rs.3,20,18,743/- along with interest/compensation calculated at 18% per annum from the date of respective deposits till the date of its realisation.;
b) Direct the Opposite Party to pay interest @ 18% p.a. on the amount already refunded, i.e., 2,78,71,527/- from the date of payment up till its realisation.
c) Direct the Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs.10 lacs towards undue hardship, injury and agony both physical and mental caused to the Complainants;
d) Direct the Opposite Party to pay at least a sum of Rs. One Lac to the Complainants towards the cost of litigation;
e) Pass such order or further order as this Hon’ble Commission deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”
On a query being raised as to what is the amount of consideration paid for the Flat, Mr. Aditya Singh, learned Counsel for the Complainant stated that the Complainant have paid a sum of Rs.3,20,18,743/- and the Opposite Party- M/s Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. has refunded the entire amount, which the Complainants have received, after deducting a sum of Rs.41,47,216/- as earnest money. Thus, by any stretch of imagination it cannot be said that the Consideration paid in the present case is Rs.3,20,18,743/-, which was originally paid by the Complainants but except for a sum of Rs.41,47,216/-, the balance amount which has not been refunded. So the consideration paid in the present case is only Rs.41,47,216/-.
Under Sub Clause (i) of Clause (a) of Sub Section (I) of Section 58 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, this Commission has the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration exceeds Rupees Ten Crores, now reduced to Rupees Two Crores. Admittedly, in the present case as already been mentioned hereinabove the consideration paid, when the Complaint has been filed was only Rs.41,47,216/-, which is much below Rupees Two Crores. Thus, this Commission does not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the present Complaint and it is accordingly dismissed. However, the Complainants are given the liberty to approach the appropriate Forum in accordance with the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.”
14. The Complainant has challenged the said Order dated 19.05.2022 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by filing Civil Appeal No.6907 of 2022 which was dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide Order dated 14.10.2022 with the following observations :-
“ Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and having gone through the impugned judgment and order dated 19.05.2022 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ('National Commission') in Consumer Complaint No. 77 of 2022, we see no reason to interfere with the same. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
Let the appellants approach the appropriate forum/Commission for the reliefs which were sought before the National Commission and as and when such proceedings are initiated, the same be considered on its own merits in accordance with law.”
15. Further, this Commission in the case of Govindu Veera Vasantha Rao Vs. Auro Realty Pvt. Ltd. – (Consumer Complaint No. 14 of 2023 decided on 23.01.2023) has dismissed the Complaint as not maintainable since the consideration paid was only ₹27,28,952/-. For ready reference, the said order is reproduced hereunder:-
“ Perused the Office report dated 19.09.2022.
The Registry is directed to register the Case as defective Consumer Complaint and give it number accordingly.
In the present Case, the Complainant has paid an amount of Rs.27,28,952/- to the Opposite Party. The State Bank of India had issued a Banker’s Cheque dated 31.07.2022 for a sum of Rs.12,99,305/- and another Banker’s Cheque dated 02.08.2022 for a sum of Rs.1,90,13,380/- in favour of the Opposite Party but the Opposite Party refused to accept the said Banker’s Cheques and had also terminated the allotment/booking of the flat and forfeited the booking amount. Thus, the Complainant has paid consideration of Rs.27,28,952/- only. The aforesaid two Banker’s Cheques of Rs.12,99,305/- and Rs.1,90,13,380/- have not been received by the Opposite Party and, therefore, the amount of the said two Banker’s Cheques cannot be said to have been paid by the Complainant to the Opposite Party as consideration.
As the value of consideration paid by the Complainant is Rs.27,28,952/-, it is far below pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission under Section 58(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This issue has already been dealt with by this Commission in M/s Pyaridevi Chabiraj Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., (CC/833/2020), decided on 28.08.2020. Similar view has been taken by this Commission in Atul Kumar Jain & Anr. Vs. Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. (CC/77/2022), decided on 19.05.2022, which has attained finality as the Appeal filed against this Order has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6907 of 2022 (Atul Kumar Jain & Anr. Vs. Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd.), decided on 14.10.2022.
The Complaint is, therefore, dismissed on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction, leaving it open to the Complainant to take recourse to such remedy as is available under law
16. Thus, in view of the foregoing discussion, as already mentioned hereinabove, the provisions of the Act 1887 and Act 1870 are applicable only to suit and not to Complaint filed under the Act before the Consumer Commission and the fee prescribed for filing the Complaint is according to the consideration paid and hence, the submissions made by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant cannot be accepted. The principle laid down by the State Commission Bihar in Ragini Kumari’s case (Supra) is bad in law. In my consider view, the State Commission has rightly upheld that as the amount of premium paid was ₹2,45,569/- for taking the Insurance Policy, the consideration paid does not exceed ₹50,00,000/- and, therefore, the State Commission does not have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint. The First Appeal fails and is dismissed.
