STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.

Date of institution : 25.08.2023 Reserved On : 25.02.2025 Date of decision : 20.03.2025 M/s Rajiv Kumar and Sons, VPO Dher, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Rupnagar, through its Proprietor Sh. Rajeev Kumar son of Naresh Kumar R/o VPO Dher, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Rupnagar.

….Appellant/Complainant Versus

1. SBI General Insurance Company Ltd., through its Branch Manager, # 46, Pusa Road, Second Floor, Karol Bagh, Near Metro Station, Delhi-110005.

2. State Bank of India, through its Branch Manager, VPO Dher, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Rupnagar.

….Respondents/OPs First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated 05.05.2023/07.07.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rupnagar.

Quorum:-

Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President Mr. Vishav Kant Garg, Member

1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No

2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No

3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Present:-

For the Appellant : Sh. Jaideep Verma, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Sh. J.P. Nahar, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Sh. Chandeep Singh, Advocate JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY, PRESIDENT This order of ours shall dispose off 2 Appeals i.e. First Appeal No.603 of 2023 and First Appeal No.604 of 2023 as similar questions of law and facts are involved therein. However, the facts are being extracted from First Appeal No.603 of 2023.

First Appeal No.603 of 2023 Appellant/Complainant M/s Rajiv Kumar and Sons through its Proprietor has filed the present Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated 05.05.2023/07.07.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rupnagar (in short, “the District Commission”), whereby the Complaint filed by Respondent No.1/Complainant was disposed off by holding that District Commission had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the Complaint, as disputed facts were involved therein, which required cross-

examination of witnesses/record.

2. It would be apposite to mention here that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as had been arrayed before the District Commission.

3. Briefly, the facts of the case, which are necessary for disposal of the present Appeal are that the Appellant/Complainant had filed the Complaint before the District Commission with the following prayer:

₹

i) The OPs be directed to pay the claim amount of 31 lac along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum and also to pay ₹

2,500/-, which was paid by the Complainant to the Fire Brigade for extinguishing the fire in the goods;

ii) OP No.2 is not entitled to recover the loan amount and interest upon it from the Complainant;

₹

iii) To pay compensation of 1 lac for causing mental as well as financial harassment to the Complainant;

₹

iv) To pay an amount of 50,000/- towards litigation expenses.

4. Upon issuance of notice in the said Complaint, the OPs had appeared before the District Commission through Counsel and filed their written reply, wherein certain preliminary objections were raised. All other averments as made in the Complaint were denied. It was prayed that the Complaint be dismissed.

5. By considering the contents of the Complaint and reply thereof filed by the OPs, the Complaint was disposed off by two Members of the District Commission vide impugned order dated 05.05.2023/07.07.2023. The relevant portion of said order as mentioned in Paras-35 & 36 is reproduced as under:

“35. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered view that OP No.1 has rightly repudiated he claim of the Complainant. Since, it is further ordered that the above said record consists of so many disputed facts, which require cross-examination of witnesses, site investigation and expert opinion on the cause of fire are required, which are not under the purview of the District Commission, as the proceedings befo