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.

NCDRC in a matter titled M/s Pyaridevi Chabiraj Steels Pvt. Ltd Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors on 28.08.2020 held 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.
Facts of the case-
The Complainant on 02.06.2016 had taken Insurance Coverage from National Insurance Company Limited, Kolkata under its Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy initially for a total sum of Rs.28,00,20,000/- (Rupees Twenty eight crores and twenty thousand only) by paying a premium of Rs.3,20,525/- (Rupees Three lac twenty thousand five hundred and twenty five only) only. The Complainant further took an additional security coverage of Rs.13,00,00,000/- (Rupees Thirteen crores only) on 25th August, 2020 by paying a premium of Rs.1,23,037/- (Rupees One lac twenty three thousand and thirty seven only). Howrah region, where the factory of the Complainant is situated was hit by heavy rainfall and it caused severe damage to the factory. The Complainant informed the Insurance Company on 05.09.2020 about the loss suffered and for making payment for the same. However, the Opposite Party No. 1 vide letter dated 29.11.2018 repudiated the claim of the complainant.

In the present case a preliminary point arises as to how this Consumer Complaint is maintainable before NCDRC 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.

Ld. Counsel for Complainant submitted that u/s 21(a)(i) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, NCDRC 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). Therefore, 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.

The National Commission held that “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.

Hon’ble National Commission further observed that, “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.

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.”

Thus, it was held that the National Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the present Consumer Complaint and it is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable.