IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Liberty to Approach Appropriate Forum – When a complaint is dismissed solely on technical or jurisdictional grounds rather than on the merits of the case, the courts generally protect the consumer’s right to seek justice by granting them the “liberty to approach the appropriate forum” (e.g., the State Commission, which handles higher pecuniary values).
(2) Determination of Pecuniary Jurisdiction – Under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, a consumer forum’s pecuniary jurisdiction is calculated based on the total value of the goods or services involved plus any compensation claimed, rather than just the specific quantum of relief or repair expenses being sought.

ORDER

Dr. Monika Malik, Member—This appeal by the appellant/complainant (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’) is directed against the order dated 30.12.2019, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gwalior (for short ‘District Commission’), in complaint case No. 156/2018, whereby the District Commission has dismissed the complaint filed by her on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction.

2. Briefly put the facts of the case are that that the complainant had entered into an agreement with the opposite party No.1/respondent No.1 and got constructed a poly-green house and had spent Rs.33,76,000/- in the construction of the same. According to the agreement executed between them there was guarantee of 4 years for maintenance and repair of damages caused to the poy-green house. The poly-green house was insured with the opposite party No.2- National Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘Insurance Company’) for the period from 1.7.2016 to 20.6.2017. In the intervening night of 26th and 27th May, 2017 due to severe storm the poly- green house got damaged completely. Intimation regarding the same was given to opposite party No.1 and the Insurance Company and the Insurance Company appointed a Surveyor, who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.14,79,792/-. As per complainant actual loss of Rs.19,17,542/- was caused. However, the Insurance Company did not settle the claim and repudiated the same on 15.11.2017. The complainant submitted that in the event of loss, there is liability of the Insurance Company to pay the claim amount. Therefore, alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties, the complainant approached the District Commission, seeking relief.

3. Opposite party No.1/respondent No.1 was ex-parte before the District Commission.

4. The opposite party No.2/Insurance Company resisted the complaint on the ground that the opposite party No.1 had not constructed the poly-green house upto the standard prescribed by the Government. The authorised Surveyor of the Government though assessed loss to the tune of Rs.14,79,792/-, however he also observed that the claim is not payable because the poly-green house has not been constructed as per the standards prescribed by the Government. Prayer for dismissal of complaint was thus made.

5. Heard. Perused the record.

6. The complainant had filed the complaint before the District Commission stating that he had spent Rs.33,76,000/- in the construction of the poly-house. After the poly-house got damaged the Insurance Company was intimated and a Surveyor was appointed in the matter to assess the loss. The Surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.14,79,792/-. The complainant alleged that the said assessment was on lower side and submitted before the District Commission that Rs.19,17,542/- should be the payable amount. She accordingly filed complaint before the District Commission, seeking payment of Rs.19,17,542/-. The District Commission observing that since the value of goods or services claimed in the instant matter exceeds Rs.20 lakhs, it has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

7. Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ‘Act’) reads as under:-

“11. Jurisdiction of the District Forum.—

(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and the compensation if any, claimed does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs.”

Undoubtedly, the complainant had sought relief regarding payment of repair expenses, which according to her should have been around Rs.19 lakhs but as per the said provision the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Commission is decided on the basis of value of goods, and relief claimed. The District Commission, therefore, by relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Ambrish Kumar Shukla vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 1 (2017) CPJ 1 (NC), has not committe