The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court recently 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 [Tabeen Mineral Water Pvt. Ltd. V/s National Insurance Company Limited]
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Mohd Yousuf Wani asked the State Commission to re-adjudicate cases it had previously dismissed for lack of pecuniary jurisdiction.
“All those cases in which the pecuniary limit is above Rupees Fifty lakhs shall be admissible and shall be required to be adjudicated on merits and any dismissal or non-interference on account of the upper pecuniary limit of Rupees Fifty lakhs is quashed, and such matters shall be required to be re-adjudicated by the Commission strictly in accordance with law and on their own merits,” the Court ordered.
The Court was hearing an appeal and a writ petition concerning consumer complaints filed before the State Consumer Commission.
It was submitted that the Commission had dismissed the complaints, which sought compensation exceeding ₹50 lakh, solely on the ground that it lacked the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain them.
In the judgment passed on October 21, the Court examined the legislative history of Section 15 of the Jammu and Kashmir Consumer Protection Act, 1987.
The law, which was replaced by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, initially provided for a pecuniary limit of ₹50,000 to ₹10 lakh.
In 1997, these limits were increased to ₹5 Lakh and ₹30 Lakh.
The Court noted that a 1998 amendment omitted the upper pecuniary limit of ₹30 lakh. It added that 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 said this omission had led to a legislative anomaly as a person claiming compensation above ₹50 lakh was rendered remediless.
It noted that the Commission had been following this position of no upper limit for a number of years until the High Court in Met Life India Insurance Company Ltd & Another v. Abdul Aziz Khan observed that the upper pecuniary limit of ₹50 Lakh was operational.
After examining the earlier ruling, the Court said it had "not drawn any conclusion or any kind of precedent oriented mandate to be followed regarding Section 15 of the Act of 1987." Thus, the Court ruled that its decision in Met Life cannot have a binding value.
It also observed that a person cannot be rendered remediless for seeking compensation because of a legislative anomaly for the pre-2019 cases. For post-2019 cases, a person can approach the National Commission, it added.
Thus, the Court ruled that for all the cases filed before 2019, the upper pecuniary limit shall be unlimited.
"This Court, while making a purposive interpretation of the legal position, lays down the law that any case pending prior to the coming into force of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, shall be dealt with, for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction, only in terms of the 1998 Gazette Notification, which omitted the upper pecuniary limit of Rupees thirty lakhs," it said.
Senior Advocate ZA Qureshi with advocate Rehana Fayaz represented the petitioner in a writ petition.
Advocate Irfan Rasool Wani appeared for the appellant in an appeal
Advocate NA Dendru appeared for the respondents.
[Read Judgment]