STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Review Application No.RA/23/7 (Arisen out of order dated 15/02/2023 in CC/22/202 passed by the State Consumer Commission)

1.Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd..

Registered office at Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Mumbai - 400001

2.Mr. Anand Gopal Mahindra, Chairman of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd., having his office at Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Mumbai - 400 001

3. Mr. Mukund Jadhav, Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd., having his office at ....... Applicants/

Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, org.OP no.1,2,5 & 6 Mumbai - 400 001.

4. Mr. Mangesh Mahadik ICCM, NBS Mahindra, Sewri Versus

1.Umesh R Tawari, office at M/s. S. Ashwinikumar & Co. LLP, 9111, Bombay Mutual Chambers, 19121 Ambalal Doshi Marg (Hamaam Street), Fort, Mumbai-400 023.

2. Ashwin Liladhar Shah, office at Clo M/s. S. Ashwinikumar & Co.

LLP, 9111, Bombay Mutual Chambers, ………Respondents.

19121Ambalal Doshi Marg (Hanuman Street), Fort, Mumbai 400023.

3. M/s. Aakash Automotives, at D-200 M.I.D.C, Mumbai - Agra National Highway, near Toll Plaza, Dhule, Maharashtra 424 006.

4. Mr. Avinash Lokhande, at D-200 M.I.D.C., Mumbai-Agra National Highway, Near Toll Plaza, Dhule, Maharashtra- 424 006

5.United India Insurance Company Limited, registered office at Mehta House, Second Floor, Mumbai Samachar Marg, Hutatma Chowk, Fort, Mumbai-400 023.

BEFORE: Justice S.P.Tavade – President Vijay C.Premchandani – Member Adv.Anita Marathe is present for the review applicants.

PRESENT:

Adv.Anuj Desai a/w. Adv.Manas Wadivkar i/b.

Adv.Rashmi Pendse for the respondent no.1.

None present for other respondents FINAL ORDER/JUDGMENT (Dt.14/01/2025)

Per Hon’ble Member Mr.Vijay C. Premchandani

1. The present review application is filed by the applicants against the order passed by this Commission on 15/02/2023 in consumer complaint no.CC/22/202. In the present application, it is contended that there is an error committed by this Commission while admitting the present consumer complaint, as the said consumer complaint does not come under the purview of pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. Therefore, prayed for review or recall of the order passed by this Commission.

2. The notices of this application were issued to the respondents and the respondent no.1 appeared in the matter. Heard both the sides. Perused the record in the original consumer complaint as well as the order passed as on 15/02/2023 in consumer complaint no.CC/22/202. We have also gone through the consideration amount alleged in the original consumer complaint which is Rs.13 lakhs and also the quotation for repair of the car is Rs.6.31 lakhs. Apparently from the record it appears that the amount paid for the goods and services is less than Rs.20 lakhs.

3. We perused section 47 of the jurisdiction of this Commission. It is stated in section 47 sub section (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, that the State Commission shall have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration, exceeds rupees fifty lakhs, but does not exceed rupees two crore. Apart from that this Commission does not have to look into the matter in the prayer clauses how much complainant has prayed in the original complaint.

4. According to section 11(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 i.e. the Old Act, the said provision was there that value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, which are claimed in the complaint was taken for deciding the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction of the Commission, wherein in the new Act i.e. Consumer Protection Act, 2019, now it is inserted that Pecuniary Jurisdiction of the Commission, the value of the goods and services paid as consideration. Therefore, the amount mentioned in the prayer clauses of the complaint cannot be considered for deciding the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission, as the law defined itself. Accordingly, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 has consented and requested that the liberty may