ORDER

Dr. Srikant Pandey, Acting President.—This is a complaint filed by the complainant under Section 47 alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties, seeking relief of sum insured of Rs.75,00,000/- along with interest, compensation and costs totaling more than Rs.90,00,000/-.

2. On going through the complaint, it is observed that admittedly the complainant’s deceased husband paid Rs.3,22,537.50/- as total premium for a period 07.12.2020 to 30.04.2024 as is evident from C-1. The sum assured under the policy is Rs.75,00,000/-

3. Earlier the complainant had filed a CC No.100/2024 before the District Commission, Jabalpur. However, the District Commission vide order dated 21.10.2024 returned the complaint to the complainant to file the same before the State Commission as the District Commission has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

4. As per powers conferred by proviso to Section 34(1) and Section 47(1) (a) (i), read with sub clause (x) of sub-section (2) of Section 101 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for short the ‘Act’) the Central Government vide notification dated 30.12.2021 has notified that the District Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain the complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration does not exceed Rs.50 lakhs and the State Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain the complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration, exceeds Rs.50 lakhs, but does not exceed rupees two crore.

5. In the instant complaint, admittedly the complainant’s deceased husband paid total premium of Rs.3,22,537.50/- (consideration) in a period of four years i.e. from 07.12.2020 to 30.04.2024 (C-1) which is much less then Rs.50 lakhs. Thus clearly, the jurisdiction of the Consumer Complaint does not rest with the State Commission.

6. In the circumstances and in view of the order passed by the National Commission in Consumer Case No.833 of 2020 M/s Pyaridevi Chabiraj Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs National Insurance Company Limited & Ors. and the order passed by this Commission in CC No.35 of 2020 (Smt. Swati Telang vs. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd.) decided on 10.09.2020, we are of the view that the complaint as filed by the complainant is within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Commission and not of State Commission.

7. In view of the aforesaid, the complaint is dismissed for want of pecuniary jurisdiction with liberty to the complainant to file the complaint before the appropriate District Commission in accordance with law.