Pecuniary Jurisdiction of the State Commission stands enhanced from Rs one Crore to Rs.10 Crores: Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Date of Filing :29.09.2021 Date of Disposal:30.09.2021 CC No.75 2021 BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION BENGALURUDATED: 30th SEPTEMBER 2021 HON’BLE Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT Mr K. B SANGANNANAVAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER Mrs DIVYASHREE M:LADY MEMBER COMPLAINT No.75 2021 Complainant Versus Mr.Syed Muzammil Azam Son of Mr S.M.Gowslazam Aged bout 39 years Residing at No.39 2nd Main 16th Cross Karamchand Layout Bengaluru 560 084 1. M s Vahan Motors Private Ltd. Registered Office at Plot No.888 Road No.45 Jubilee Hills Hyderabad 500 034 Telangana Represented by its Managing Director Mr.Venu Donepudi 2. Carz A Unit of M s Vahan Motors Private Ltd. Workshop at Sy No 5 Sarjapur Road Outer Ring Road Bellandur Near Ibllur Flyover Bengaluru 560 013 Rep. by its CEO Mr Vijay Gummadi 2 CC No.75 2021 3. M s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited No.1 2 Golden Heights 4th Floor 59th C Cross 4th M Block Rajajinagar Bengaluru 560 010 Opposite Parties Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH: PRESIDENT :O R D E R : The Commission heard the learned Counsel for the Complainant. This complaint is filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 with a prayer to direct the OPs to pay Rs.16 63 000 to the Complainant with interest thereon at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of award till the date of realisation and costs. The matter is set for Admission. The Commission perused the records of the Complainant’s case thereby found satisfied to dispense with Notice on the OPs to avoid delay keeping in mind the object of the CP Act. It is to be noted herein that Consumer Protection Act 2019 came into force w.e.f from 20.07.2020 and in view of Section 47 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 the Pecuniary Jurisdiction of the State Commission stands enhanced from Rs one Crore to Rs.10 Crores. It is therefore this complaint cannot be entertained as on the day before the State Commission when the amount in complaint is stated less than rupees One Crore. However in respect of matter having value less than Rs 1 Crore the jurisdiction falls within the District Commission. 4. We perused the Order dated 21.09.2021 passed in Consumer Complaint No.852 2016 on the file of II Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bengaluru wherein the District Commission has returned the Complaint on the point of Pecuniary 3 Jurisdiction on the ground as on 17.06.2016 claim exceeds Rs.20 lakhs which is held incorrect since claim as on the date of complaint was Rs.16 70 000 which does not exceed the jurisdiction of District Forum. CC No.75 2021 5. In the above circumstances in view of the provision of new CP Act 2019 this Commission has no option except to return the Complaint to the Complainant to present the same before the District Commission. Accordingly Complaint is disposed of. Consequently Impugned Order dated 21.09.2021 passed in CC No.852 2016 is hereby set aside with a direction to the District Commission to decide the matter on merits after hearing both the parties and dispose of the case within 3 months from the date of receipt of this Order. Office is directed to return the Complaint along with the documents presented to the Complainant for presentation before the II Additional District Commission Bengaluru. Lady Member Judicial Member President 

Summary: A Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 was filed, demanding the opposition to pay Rs. 16,63,000 along with an interest of 18% p.a from the date of award till realization and costs. The complaint was resolved as per the amended Consumer Protection Act 2019 which revised the Pecuniary Jurisdictions for all the three forums. Hon’ble Justice Huluvadi G Ramesh, along with Mr. K B Sangannanavar and Mrs. Divayshree M presided over the matter of: Syed Muzammil Azam v. Vahan Motors Pvt. Ltd. And Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., CC No. 75/2021.  The Commission reviewed the Complainant’s case records and determined that it was sufficient to forego the Notice on the opposition in order to prevent delays, taking into account the purpose of the Consumer Protection Act. It was pointed out that as per the 2019 Act, the Pecuniary Jurisdiction of the State Commission has increased to Rs. 10 Crores from Rs. 1 Crore, making it impossible for the complaint to be heard by the State Commission as the amount in question was less than Rs. One Crore. That being said, the Complaint can be heard by the District Commission. The State Commission also noted the error by the District Commission in returning the Complaint on the ground that the claim exceeds Rs. 20 Lakhs (as per 17.06.2016). However, the claim amounted to Rs. 16, 70,000 which was well within the ambit of the District Forum. In light of the above mentioned, the Commission held the following; “In view of the provision of new CP Act 2019, this Commission has no option, except to return the Complaint to the Complainant to present the same before the District Commission. Accordingly, Complaint is disposed of. Consequently, Impugned Order dated 21.09.2021 passed in CC No.852/2016 is hereby set aside with a direction to the District Commission to decide the matter on merits after hearing both the parties and dispose-of the case within 3 months, from the date of receipt of this Order. Office is directed to return the Complaint along with the documents presented, to the Complainant for presentation before the II Additional District Commission, Bengaluru.” Click Here to Read the Judgement