JURISDICTION OF CONSUMER FORUMS AND COMMISSIONS
There has been a long-standing confusion as to whether the value of goods/services, as the case may be, or the compensation claimed in the complaint, alone will be considered to determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of the appropriate Consumer Forum.
In the landmark judgment delivered by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in the case of Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. v. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., the issue under consideration, which was res integra, was finally put to rest. In this case, it was decided that a perusal of Sections 21, 17 and 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, makes it clear that the aggregate of the value of the goods/services, as the case may be and the amount of compensation claimed in the complaint, if any, should be considered for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of the appropriate Forum. The value of the goods/services, alone, cannot be considered to determine jurisdiction. Similarly, only the amount of compensation claimed in the complaint, if any, cannot be considered to determine jurisdiction. Therefore, the aggregate of the value of goods/services, as the case may be, along with the amount of compensation claimed in the complaint, if any, must be taken into account to ascertain the pecuniary jurisdiction of the appropriate Forum.
In the case of immovable property, the question that arises is, whether the market value of the flat/apartment/immovable property, or the price at which the same was bought by the customer must be considered to determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of the appropriate Forum. This was decided as, the price at which the flat/apartment bought, must be considered and not the market value of the same, as the latter is always subject to change and is therefore, rendered as highly unreliable, although the term ‘value’ used in the specific piece of legislation might suggest to be ‘market price’.
Where a class or representative complaint is instituted, the aggregate of the value of the goods/services, as the case may be, along with the compensation claimed, if any, in the complaint will be considered to determine jurisdiction. It was held that the whole object and purpose of a representative complaint would be destroyed if the value of the goods/services and compensation of only an individual customer was considered and not the aggregate of all the customers who have the same interest against the same respondent.
A plethora of cases, namely, Ravi Misra v. Amit C. Prabhu, etc, have followed the decision rendered in this case, and rightly so.
AUTHORED BY:
VISHNU P V
Associate,
MENTO ASSOCIATES.