AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard counsel for the parties.
The opposite parties raised a preliminary objection relating to pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission.
Above complaint has been filed seeking following reliefs:
A) The complaint of the complainant may be allowed with cost.
B) It may be directed that, the respondent No. 1 to 3 shall pay the original amount of Rs.7,33, 61,319/ and interest at the rate of 12 percent thereon from 1.06.2020 till its realisation and the amount of compensation to the complainant jointly and severally.
C) It may be directed to Respondent No.1 to 3 that the amount of Rs.25,00,000/- shall be given to the complainant towards the mental and physical harassment and Rs.5,00,000/- shall be given towards the expenses to the complainant from the Respondent No.1 and 2.
D) It may be ordered that, the Respondent No. 1 and 2 should not charge any interest on loan amount availed by the complainant from Respondent No.1 since 30.05.2020 due to the peril and damage of the cotton goods which was pledged by the Complainant with the Respondent No.1 Credit society.
E) The Respondent No.3 may be directed to pay separate compensation of Rs. 50,00,000/- towards the loss of business suffered by the Complainant as complainant is constrained to raise private loans to make up the losses occurred to his stock in trade and for delaying the payment of compensation by the Respondent no.3 company.
F) Any other relief to which the complainant is entitled to may kindly be granted in favour of the complainant.
It is admitted that Buldhana Urban Multi-State Co-op. Credit Society Ltd. Buldhana (opposite parties no.1&2) are Multi-State Co-operative Credit Societies duly governed by the provisions of Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002. Opposite parties no.1&2 also owned warehouses. As per rule of opposite parties no.1&2, they used to provide loan on the goods stored in their warehouses to the extent of 60% of its value. Opposite parties no.1 & 2 have obtained the Standard Fire Insurance Policy no. 280400112010000002 for the period from 07.04.2020 to 06.04.2021 for a sum insured of Rs.425 Crores by paying total premium of Rs.7623804/-. According to the complainant, the complainant has deposited 3815 cotton bales during 27.12.2019 to 28.05.2020 in the warehouses owned by opposite parties no.1&2. As alleged by the complainant, on storing the above cotton bales, opposite parties have sanctioned a loan amount of Rs.2,96,65,000/- in aggregate. There was a fire incident in the warehouse of opposite parties no.1&2 on 30.05.2020 in which cotton bales of the complainant were destroyed. It is admitted to the complainant that opposite parties no.1&2 have set up insurance claim under the above policy before National Insurance Company Ltd., opposite party no.3 but the claim was closed and thereafter, opposite parties no.1&2 have filed CC/7/2022 before Maharashtra State Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Amrawati which is still pending. Since the claim of the complainant has not been reimbursed, the complainant, vide letter dated 25.03.2022, addressed to opposite parties no.1&2, demanded for reimbursement of the damage caused to it. Thereafter, this complaint was filed before this Commission on 19.12.2022. As alleged by all three contesting parties, there are three separate causes of action in the complaint; firstly, damage to the cotton bales due to fire incident on 30.05.2020 in the warehouses of opposite parties no.1&2 as well as closure of insurance claim by opposite party no.3 for reimbursement of the damage; secondly, according to the complainant, the loan was disbursed by opposite parties no.1&2. Therefore, there was a separate cause of action against opposite parties no.1&2 and thirdly, there was deficiency in service in storage of the cotton bales in the warehouses of opposite parties no.1&2.
So far as the insurance claim is concerned, it is proved from the insurance policy that total premium of Rs.7623804/- was paid in respect of the entire godown in respect of the goods stored in the warehouses of opposite parties no.1&2. So far as the deficiency in respect of storage of goods is concerned, the complainant is required to pay the storage charges and he has paid storing charges of Rs.2053/-. So far as loan amount sanctioned by opposite parties no.1&2 is concerned, there is no allegation relating to deficiency in service either in disbursement of the loan amount or in its realization. Therefore, it is immaterial. Section 58 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 provides that the National Commission will have jurisdiction in respect of complaints where the value of goods or services paid as consideration exceeds Rs.10 Crores. By the notification of 2022, Rs.10 Crores have been replaced by the Government of India by Rs.2 Crores. Neither the insurance premium exceeds Rs.2 Crores nor does the loan paid by the complainant exceed Rs.2 Crores. Therefore, this Commission has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.
The other objection is also raised by the counsel for the opposite parties that so far as complaint in respect of the insurance company is concerned, it is merely a beneficiary within the meaning of a consumer as defined in Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. He may not be permitted to file any complaint without the approval of opposite parties no.1&2. So far as opposite parties no.1&2 are concerned, they have already filed CC/7/2022 which is pending before the State Commission. Since we have already held that we have no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this complaint, we do not propose to decide this issue.
ORDER
In the result, the complaint is returned to the complainant to seek his remedy before the appropriate forum in accordance with law.
The office shall take a photostate copy of the complete set of the complaint and return the original complaint to the complainant.