Srinagar, Oct 24: The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has ruled that consumer claims exceeding ₹50 lakh are maintainable before the J&K State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission if they were instituted before the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, came into force in the Union Territory.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Dr Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Mohd Yousuf Wani, while deciding Tabeen Mineral Water Pvt. Ltd. v. National Insurance Company Limited, directed the Commission to re-adjudicate cases previously dismissed on the ground of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction.
The court was hearing an appeal and a writ petition concerning consumer complaints seeking compensation exceeding ₹50 lakh. The complaints had been dismissed by the Commission solely on the ground that it lacked the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain them.
In its judgment pronounced on October 21, the High Court examined the legislative history of Section 15 of the Jammu and Kashmir Consumer Protection Act, 1987, which was replaced by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The bench noted that the 1998 amendment had omitted the upper pecuniary limit of ₹30 lakh. A subsequent amendment in 2011 substituted the figures of ₹5 lakh and ₹30 lakh with ₹10 lakh and ₹50 lakh, without addressing the earlier omission.
The court observed that the omission had created a legislative anomaly, leaving consumers seeking compensation above ₹50 lakh without an effective forum. It noted that the Commission had followed the position of having no upper pecuniary limit for several years until the High Court’s ruling in Met Life India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Abdul Aziz Khan held that the ₹50 lakh ceiling was operational.
However, the bench said the Met Life judgment had not laid down a binding precedent on the interpretation of Section 15 of the 1987 Act.
The court held that consumers should not be rendered remediless due to the legislative anomaly in cases instituted before the 2019 Act came into force. It clarified that post-2019 cases could be taken to the National Commission, as per the applicable law.
The bench ruled that pre-2019 cases must be dealt with under the 1998 Gazette notification, which omitted the upper pecuniary limit.
It accordingly held that claims exceeding ₹50 lakh in such cases are maintainable and must be adjudicated on merits, quashing dismissals or refusals based solely on the pecuniary ceiling.
The Commission has been directed to re-adjudicate the affected matters strictly in accordance with law and on their own merits.
Srinagar, Oct 24: The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has ruled that consumer claims exceeding ₹50 lakh are maintainable before the J&K State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission if they were instituted before the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, came into force in the Union Territory.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Dr Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Mohd Yousuf Wani, while deciding Tabeen Mineral Water Pvt. Ltd. v. National Insurance Company Limited, directed the Commission to re-adjudicate cases previously dismissed on the ground of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction.
The court was hearing an appeal and a writ petition concerning consumer complaints seeking compensation exceeding ₹50 lakh. The complaints had been dismissed by the Commission solely on the ground that it lacked the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain them.
In its judgment pronounced on October 21, the High Court examined the legislative history of Section 15 of the Jammu and Kashmir Consumer Protection Act, 1987, which was replaced by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The bench noted that the 1998 amendment had omitted the upper pecuniary limit of ₹30 lakh. A subsequent amendment in 2011 substituted the figures of ₹5 lakh and ₹30 lakh with ₹10 lakh and ₹50 lakh, without addressing the earlier omission.
The court observed that the omission had created a legislative anomaly, leaving consumers seeking compensation above ₹50 lakh without an effective forum. It noted that the Commission had followed the position of having no upper pecuniary limit for several years until the High Court’s ruling in Met Life India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Abdul Aziz Khan held that the ₹50 lakh ceiling was operational.
However, the bench said the Met Life judgment had not laid down a binding precedent on the interpretation of Section 15 of the 1987 Act.
The court held that consumers should not be rendered remediless due to the legislative anomaly in cases instituted before the 2019 Act came into force. It clarified that post-2019 cases could be taken to the National Commission, as per the applicable law.
The bench ruled that pre-2019 cases must be dealt with under the 1998 Gazette notification, which omitted the upper pecuniary limit.
It accordingly held that claims exceeding ₹50 lakh in such cases are maintainable and must be adjudicated on merits, quashing dismissals or refusals based solely on the pecuniary ceiling.
The Commission has been directed to re-adjudicate the affected matters strictly in accordance with law and on their own merits.
© Copyright 2023 brighterkashmir.com All Rights Reserved. Quantum Technologies
