AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Prem Narain, Presiding Member
Learned counsel for the complainant Mr Arun Kumar Singh has given the authority letter to Mr Prafulla Kumar, Proxy Counsel to argue the matter in this case on admission hearing.
The brief facts of the case are that the complainant has purchased two Heman 175 Skid Steer loaders machine for a cost of Rs.26,27,638/- from the opposite party. The defects have been alleged in the working of the loaders during the warranty period. In the complaint, a prayer has been made to direct the OP to replace the loaders and to give compensation of Rs.11,72,63,154/-for the loss of work.
Heard the learned counsel for the complainant at the admission stage. Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the machine was under warranty. The complainant is a consumer qua the opposite party. Learned counsel for the complainant had referred to the judgment of this Commission in the case of Action Construction Equipment vs Shri Bablu Mridha in RP No. 2079 of 2012 decided on 20 Ltd., decided on 09.05.2006.
Coming to the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission to decide the present complaint, the learned counsel states that though the cost of the machines is only about Rs.54 lakh, a compensation of Rs.11,72,63,154/- has been asked by the complainant for the loss suffered by the complainant in its project. Thus, the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission is fully met.
I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant and examined the material on record. It is seen that the total cost of the two loaders is about Rs.54 lakh and in the light of the judgment of the larger Bench of this Commission in Consumer Case no. 97 of 2016, Ambrish Kumar Shukla and Ors. Vs Ferrous Infrstructure Pvt. Ltd., decided on 07.10.2016 (NC) , wherein it has been observed that the value of consideration of goods or services along with compensation demanded shall be considered for deciding the pecuniary jurisdiction of a consumer forum. The value of the goods in this case is about Rs.54 lakh only. The OP has only supplied the machine on purchase by the complainant under an agreement. There is no agreement between the parties that if the machine does not work, then the loss of work would be compensated by the seller. The main prayer of the complainant is for replacement of the machines. Clearly, if any money has been spent on repair of these machines that can be added in the compensation. Clearly to achieve the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission, an inflated compensation of Rs.11,72,63,154/- has been demanded in the complaint for which no details have been given.
In fact, for a defective machine the maximum order that could be passed would be limited to the replacement of the machine or the refund of the cost of the machine along with some nominal compensation for mental agony and harassment as well as cost of litigation if justified.
The compensation of Rs.11,72,63,154/- is highly inflated and the same cannot be considered for deciding the pecuniary jurisdiction of the consumer forum. The cost of two machines is only about Rs.54 lakh. Even if some reasonable compensation for this cost of the machine is taken into account, the figure may not cross the limit of Rs.1.00 crore and therefore, this Commission has no jurisdiction to decide the present complaint. Accordingly, this Consumer Complaint no. 123 of 2016 is dismissed as the same is not maintainable before this Commission for want of pecuniary jurisdiction. Consequently, the present compliant is dismissed at the admission stage. However, in the interest of justice, liberty is granted to the complainant to file a fresh complaint on the same cause of action before the appropriate forum having the territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction.
The period spent before this Commission from filing of the present complaint till the disposal of the complaint shall not be counted towards the period of limitation. Benefit of section 14 of the Limitation Act shall be provided.