M.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)

APPEAL NO. 02/2018 M/s Jagdamba Saw Mill Address – Near I.T.I.J.R Birla Road Post Office Birla Vikas Satna District Satna (M.P.)

Through partner – Suresh Kumar Goyal S/o Ram Kumar Goyal Near I.T.I. Birla Road, Satna (M.P.). ... Appellant VERSUS.

1. United India Insurance Company Ltd.

Main Office – United India House Whites Road Chennai 600 014

2. United India Insurance Company Ltd.

Regional Office/Branch Office Hotel Sidhant Rewa Road, Satna (M.P.) ... Respondents BEFORE;

HON’BLE JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV, PRESIDENT HON’BLE DR. MONIKA MALIK, MEMBER COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

SHRI PRACHETA MISHRA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT.

SHRI MAHAVIR BHATNAGAR, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS.

O R D E R

( 06.01.2026 )

The following order of the Bench was delivered by Dr.

Monika Malik, Member.

This appeal by the complainant/appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’), is directed against the order dated 26.5.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Satna (for short ‘District Commission’), in complaint case No. 424/F/2012, whereby the District Commission has dismissed the complaint filed by him.

2. Heard.

3. Learned counsel for complainant argued that the complainant had filed the said complaint before the District Commisson seeking relief of Rs.20,07,294/-. The District Commission, at that point of time had no pecuniary jurisdiction to decide the said complaint case. Specific objection by the opposite parties/respondents-United India Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘Insurance Company’), to this effect was raised before the District Commission but despite that the District Commission decided the complaint and passed the impugned order. He prayed that on this ground, the impugned order be set aside and the complainant be provided with appropriate opportunity to recontest his case.

4. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the objection regarding pecuniary jurisdiction was raised before the District Commission but the District Commission went ahead and decided the case on merits. He further argued that the District Commission has dismissed the complaint on the basis that the complainant was working for commercial purposes. Stock registers were also not properly maintained by him and were not presented before the District Commission.

He thus prayed that the appeal be dismissed.

5. It has been rightly observed by the District Commission, there is no evidence that the complainant was working to earn livelihood by way of self-employment. Categorical pleadings in this regard are missing before the District Commission. Therefore, it does not appear that the District Commission has committed error in dismissing the complaint on merits.

6. We find that the District Commission has certainly not considered the objection raised by the Insurance Company that the complaint is not maintainable on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction. The District Commission heard the matter on merits and dismissed the complaint filed by him. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Neena Aneja & Anr. vs. Jai Prakash Associates Ltd. III (2021) CPJ 1 (SC) and has held that proceedings instituted before commencement of Act of 2019 would continue before Fora corresponding to those under Act of 1986 and not be transferred in terms of pecuniary jurisdiction set for Fora established under Act of

2019.

7. In the aforesaid light, we observe that the earlier round of litigation was conducted before the District Commission under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and if the case is directed to be re-decided, the same will again go back to the District Commission. Hence, the ground raised by the complainant in this appeal does not solve any purpose, therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

8. In view of the foregoing discussion, we conclude that the appeal which is devoid of any merit deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.

9. No order as to costs.

(JUSTI