IN THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI Present:Hon’ble Thiru. Justice R.SUBBIAH ... PRESIDENT F.A. No.1141 of 2023 (Against the Order, dated 29.12.2022, in C.C. No.70 of

2022, on the file of the DCDRC, Coimbatore)

Orders, dt: 14.02.2025 V.Leo Sarni, Executive Director –

A.V. Properties (India) P. Ltd., 392, Lakshmanan Nagar, Gandhipuram, Coimbatore 641 012. … Appellant/Complainant Vs.

1.M/s.Mercedes Benz India Private Ltd., Rep. by its MD & CEO – Martin Schwenk, Manufacturing Plant Chakan, E3, MIDC, Phase 3, Chakan Industrial Area, Kuruli and Nighoje, Maharashtra 410 501.

2. M/s.Mercedes Benz India Private Ltd., Rep. by its Head – Piyush Arora, Manufacturing Plant Chakan, E3, MIDC, Phase 3, Chakan Industrial Area, Kuruli and Nighoje, Maharashtra 410 501.

3.M/s.Rajasree Motors P. Ltd., Rep. by its MD – Sreenivasan Sivakumar, 6/380 (2/393C), Near Kundanur Junction, Maruadu PO, Cochin 682 304, Ernakulam, Kerala, India. ` ... Respondents/Opposite parties 1to 3.

For Appellant : M/s. R. Nandhakumar For Respondents 1 & 2 : M/s. K. Ashok Kumar

3rd Respondent : Served and called absent This First Appeal came up for final hearing on 22.01.2025 and, after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and counsel for the respondents 1 & 2 and upon perusing the materials on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Commission passes the following:- O R D E R R.Subbiah, J. President .

–

The appellant herein challenges the order, dated

29.12.2022, passed by the DCDRC – Coimbatore, rejecting the consumer complaint filed by him against the respondents herein as OPs in C.C. No.70 of 2022, for want of pecuniary jurisdiction.

2. It is the crux of the appellant’s side submissions that what matters in determining the pecuniary jurisdiction, in terms of the statutory provision under Section 34 (1) of the CP Act, 2019 as well as the Notification, dated 30.12.2021, issued by the Department of Consumer affairs, is, only the consideration paid for value of the goods or services and that the reliefs cannot be aggregated; while so, when the refund sought for against the cost paid for the subject-matter/Mercededs Benz car being Rs.44,48,003/-, the District Commission ought to have adopted the said sum alone as the benchmark for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction and proceeded with the case that had already been numbered and admitted, but, by adding the other sums claimed in the prayer portion viz., Rs.1,26,681/- that was paid for getting insurance cover, Rs.80,000/- & Rs.10 lakh spent for securing fancy registration number and registration processing fee, the said Commission observed that the complainant seeks a total refund of Rs.56,54,684/- and proceeded to hold illogically that the claim exceeds its pecuniary jurisdiction. According to the learned counsel, the conduct of the District Commission in -

> adopting a method of calculation which is absolutely contrary to the Statutory provision and the Rules issued under the Notification, dated 30.12.2021, > pointlessly aggregating the reliefs and proceeding to reject the complaint as if the claim exceeds its pecuniary jurisdiction; and > vainly driving the complainant to knock the doors of this Commission, would only show that it went astray from the statutory track and hence, the impugned order is a clear nullity that has to be necessarily interfered with.

3. Per contra, it is the argument of the other side that the relevant statutory provision under Section 34 (1) of the CP Act 2019 as well as the rules under the Notification have to be looked at and applied in a wider and liberal context so as to include the other sums claimed in the relief that are inherently connected to the subject matter also, within the anvil of calculation regarding pecuniary jurisdiction and that a narrow or rigid interpretation would definitely not be in harmonious with the objectives of the Act. The impugned rejection order reflects the factum that the District Com