AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THE question for consideration is whether in view of amendment made in Sections 11 and 17(1)(a) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 2002 which came into force w.e.f. 15.3.2003 whether the present complaint which was filed on 14.3.2002 before amendment came into force, by which a decree of Rs. 18,22,000/ - was sought by the complainant against the opposite party can be tried by this Commission or it should be tried by the concerned District Forum or not. In other words the question is whether amended provisions of Sections 11 and 17(1)(a) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 can be made applicable to pending complaints or not.
IT may be stated here that by that amendment Section 11 of Act, 1986 had been amended to enhance the jurisdiction of the District Forum to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and the compensation claimed exceed Rs. 5 lacs but does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs. Similarly by Amendment Act, 2002 Section 17 has been amended so as to clarify the jurisdiction of the State Commission and also to raise its jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of goods or services and compensation claimed exceed rupees twenty lakhs but does not exceed rupees and crore.
IN our considered opinion since the above amendment had come into force w.e.f. 15.3.2003 the date on which the present complaint was pending before this Commission after 15.3.2003 this Commission has no jurisdiction to decide complaint where the value does not exceed Rs. 20 lakhs.
THUS in our considered opinion, above amended provisions would apply to pending complaints which have not been disposed of prior to 15.3.2003, though these complaints would have been admitted prior to amendment made in Sections 11 and 17 of the Act 1986. Thus it is held that pending complaints are now to be disposed of as per amended provisions of Sections 11 and 17(1)(a) of Act, 1986.
THEREFORE , the argument that even after amendment the present complaint should have been decided by this Commission stand rejected as the value of the goods or services and compensation claimed does not exceed Rs. 20 lacs.
THE learned Counsel for the complainant has placed reliance on an order of the Honble High Court in the case of S.B. Civil Revision No. 222/1993, Ramlal and Anr. v. Smt. Dakha Devi and Anr., in which it was held that pecuniary jurisdiction of a Civil Judge would not affect the pending proceedings. In our considered opinion in view of the amended provisions of Sections 11 and 17(1)(a) of the Act, the intention of the legislator is very much clear that the amended provisions would be applicable to pending complaints also otherwise the purpose of that amendment would become frustrated.
FOR reasons mentioned above, it is held that this complaint should now be heard by the District Forum, Jaipur -I. Therefore, the complaint is sent back to the District Forum, Jaipur -I, Jaipur for adjudication in accordance with law.
PARTIES are directed to appear before the District Forum, Jaipur -I on 20.7.2005. Office is directed to send the file and other papers to the District Forum before that date. Since the opposite party is not present before this Commission, therefore, before the hearing is started the District Forum shall also issue a fresh notice to opposite party for appearance. Complaint returned back.