AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THE complainant in O.P. No. 273/98 on the file of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kozhikode is the appellant.
THE complainant brought the complaint before the District Forum alleging that it wanted redressal against the claim made by the opposite party for ''retrospective interest'' on the amount taken by the complainant, the interest so demanded was stated to be Rs. 44,00,000/-. THE opposite party entered appearance and wanted the maintainability of the complaint to be heard. THE District Forum heard on the question of maintainability. One of the points raised before the District Forum was, that the complaint since in content and purpose is one for a declaration and Section 14(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 does not confer jurisdiction to give a relief as the one prayed for, the complaint is not maintainable. It was also contended that on behalf of the opposite parties that the District Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction as per Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to entertain the complaint. The District Forum held in favour of the opposite parties on both the points and dismissed the complaint. It is the said dismissal that is challenged by the complainant in this appeal.
The learned Counsel for the appellant sought to maintain, that inasmuch as the subject-matter of the complaint was Rs. 44,00,000/-, evidently the complaint was not entertainable before the District Forum it had to be returned for presentation before the appropriate Forum. Since the District Forum had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint the District Forum had no jurisdiction to enter finding to the effect that the relief claimed is beyond the scope of Section 14(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and, therefore, the complaint is not maintainable. In short according to him, the District Forum ought to have returned the complaint on the ground that it had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The learned Counsel for the respondent sought to support the dismissal maintaining that the complaint had to be dismissed not only because the frame of the complaint is such that it is not maintainable, the District Forum had no jurisdiction also to entertain the complaint.
THE learned Counsel for the appellant brought to our notice the decision of the National Commission reported in THE President, Korapur Dist. Krushak Samaj v. THE Chairman, Orissa State Co.-op. Marketing Federation Ltd., 1996 (1) Current Consumer Cases 198, in that case the relief claimed was for Rs. 2 lakhs, the National Commission held with due regard to the provision as it stood then, the complaint could have been filed only before the State Commission and, therefore, the complaint was returned for presentation before the proper forum. Since the subject-matter of the complaint in question is valued at Rs. 44,00,000/-, the District Forum had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. THEn as it had no pecuniary jurisdiction, it could not have entered finding with respect to any other points. In that view the finding entered by the District Forum that the prayer would not fall under Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has to be vacated. We do so. THE said question is left open. Since the District Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction, the complaint has to be returned for representation before the proper Forum. In that view the appeal has to be allowed. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the District Forum will return the complaint for presentation before the proper forum. Appeal allowed.