AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.K. Jain, J
The petitioner/complainant obtained a Marine Cargo Open Policy from the respondent to the extent of sum assured of Rs.10 crore. The case of the petitioner/complainant is that goods worth Rs.987087/- were sent by it to a company at Chennai which was the forwarder of the foreign buyer and had a warehouse at Chennai. The train by which the cargo was being carried caught fire and the goods were damaged. The petitioner claimed an amount Rs.987087/- from the respondent. The claim having not been paid, the petitioner/complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint. The District Forum, however, dismissed the complaint holding that it did not have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, as the sum insured under the policy was beyond its pecuniary jurisdiction. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed, the petitioner is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.
In terms of Section 11 of the C.P. Act, a District Forum possesses the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain a consumer complaint where the value of the goods or services as the case may be and the compensation if any claimed does not exceed Rs.20 lakhs. The petitioner had claimed compensation only to the extent of Rs.987087/-, along with interest on that amount, in addition to compensation for mental agony quantified at Rs.2 lakhs and the aggregate of the same does not exceed Rs.20 lakhs.
The question which arises for consideration in this petition is as to what would be the value of the service hired or availed by the petitioner/complainant. In CC No.97 of 2016 Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. dated 7.10.2016, a three-Members Bench of this Commission observed that if for instance a person purchases a machine for more than 1 crore a manufacturing defect is found in the machine and the cost of removing the said defect is Rs.10 lakhs, it is the aggregate of the sale consideration paid by the consumer for the machine and compensation if any claimed in the complaint which would determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of the consumer forum.
It was further observed that if, for instance, a house is sold for more than Rs.1 crore, certain defects are found in the house and the cost of removing those defects is Rs.5 lakhs, the complaint would have to be filed before this Commission, the value of the service itself being more than Rs.1 crore. Thus this Commission took the view that the consideration agreed to be paid by the consumers should be taken as the value of the goods or the services as the case may be and for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction the amount of compensation as claimed in the complaint needs to be added to the agreed consideration.
When an insurance policy is taken by a person he pays a premium to the insurer for hiring or availing its services. It is the premium paid by the insured to the insurer and not the extent of the sum insured which constitutes 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 sum assured would have no bearing on determination of the pecuniary jurisdiction of a consumer forum.
Admittedly in the present case if the premium paid by the petitioner / complainant to the respondent is added to the compensation claimed by it, the aggregate does not come to more than Rs.20 lakhs. The District Forum, therefore, did possess the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint.
For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned orders are set aside and the complaint filed by the petitioner is restored to the file of the concerned District Forum, which shall proceed to hear and decide the complaint on merits. The parties shall appear before the concerned District Forum on 20.2.2018. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.