Home   |   About us   |   Contact us   |   Request Callback  
 
   
ALREADY A MEMBER ?
Username
Password

Translate

This Page To:

 
THE FEDERAL BANK LTD. V/S NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., decided on Wednesday, February 2, 2000.
[ In the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram, Complaint No. 83 of 1999. ] 02/02/2000
Judge(s) : L. MANOHARAN, PRESIDENT, PROF. K. MADHURI LATHA, MEMBER & PROF. R. VIJAYAKRISHNAN, MEMBER
Advocate(s) : Complainant C.J. Simon, S. Reghukumar. Opposite Party Rajan P. Kaliyath.
Judgment Full Text : Existing LawyerServices Members, kindly login above.

Non Members, Enter your email address:- and , to request this judgment.

Alternatively, you may send a request by email to info@lawyerservices.in for the Full Text of this Judgment (chargeable).

LawyerServices Facebook Page

Judgments that may be related:-


  Eera Through Dr. Manjula Krippendorf Versus State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Another,   21/07/2017.  

  Roger Shashoua & Others Versus Mukesh Sharma & Others,   04/07/2017.  

  K. Ratna Prabha & Others Versus State of Telangana rep. by its Special Standing Counsel ACB & Others,   20/06/2017.  

  Bharati Hexacom Limited, represented by Sib Kumar Sarma, Deputy General Manager (Legal & Regulatory) Versus The Union of India, represented by the Secretary to the Ministry of Communications & Information Technology, Department of Telecommunications (Access Services Cell), New Delhi & Others,   16/05/2017.  

  Gard Marine & Energy Limited & Others Versus China National Chartering Company Limited & Others,   10/05/2017.  

  Poshteh Versus Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea,   10/05/2017.  

  The Commissioners for Her Majesty?s Revenue & Customs & Another Versus The Investment Trust Companies (in liquidation) & Another,   11/04/2017.  

  P. Sathya Prabha Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary to Government, Thiruvananthapurm & Others,   21/03/2017.  

  G. Rama Mohan Rao & Another Versus The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep, by its Principal Secretary and Chairman, Agricultural, Marketing & Cooperative Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & Another,   07/03/2017.  

  Clive Frederick Palmer & Another Versus Marcus William Ayres, Stephen James Parbery & Michael Andrew Owen in their Capacities As Liquidators of Queensland Nickel Pty Ltd (In Liq) & Others,   08/02/2017.  

  Yamini Sharma & Another Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others,   07/01/2017.  

  M/s Narne Estates Pvt., Ltd. & Another Versus Dr. E. Surender Rao & Another,   02/01/2017.  

  T.K.S. Elangovan & Others Versus The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Chief Secretary to Government Secretariat, Chennai & Others,   22/12/2016.  

  Dr. Deepa Sharma Versus State of Uttarakhand & Others,   15/12/2016.  

  IDBI Federal Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another Versus Rameshwar Prasad Jain,   04/11/2016.  

  A. Ayyasamy Versus A. Paramasivam & Others,   04/10/2016.  

  Gade Basaveswara Rao & Others Versus The Government of AP., rep.by The Principal Secretary, Health Medical and Family Welfare Department & Others,   14/09/2016.  

  M/s. Rendezvous Sports World & Others Versus The Board of Control for Cricket in India & Others,   08/08/2016.  

  Lucio Robert Paciocco & Another Versus Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Limited ,   27/07/2016.  

  Mirza Versus Patel,   20/07/2016.  

  Crown Melbourne Limited Versus Cosmopolitan Hotel (VIC) Pty Ltd. & Another ,   20/07/2016.  

  Surajit Nundy & Others Versus Management of Mirambika Free Progress School & Others,   07/07/2016.  

  Zangpo Sherpa, Legal Aid Counsel, Gangtok Versus The Government of Sikkim, Through the Chief Secretary, East Sikkim & Others,   01/07/2016.  

  Life Insurance Corporation of India Through Prem Chandra, Assistant Secretary (Legal), Delhi Versus Dr. A.B. Singh ,   25/05/2016.  

  Life Insurance Corporation of India Versus Dr. A.B. Singh,   25/05/2016.  

  Modern Dental College & Research Centre & Others Versus State of Madhya Pradesh & Others,   02/05/2016.  

  Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ) Versus Competition Commission of India & Another,   30/03/2016.  

  State Bank of India & Others Versus State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, Department of Revenue and Forest, Mantralaya & Others,   22/03/2016.  

  Prattley Enterprises Limited Versus Vero Insurance New Zealand Limited,   14/03/2016.  

  The Manager, IDBI Fortis (IDBI Federal), Life Insurance Company Ltd. Versus P. Unnikrishnan & Another,   24/02/2016.  

  Tata Teleservices Versus Union of India,   05/02/2016.  

  Murmansk Shipping Company Versus Adani Power Rajasthan Ltd. & Others,   08/01/2016.  

  Sunil Shantisarup Gupta Versus Department of Legal Affairs & Others,   07/01/2016.  

  Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary & Others Versus Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad & Others,   23/12/2015.  

  Moohan & Another Versus The Lord Advocate,   17/12/2015.  

  Cavendish Square Holding BV & Another Versus Talal El Makdessi & Another,   04/11/2015.  

  Coimbatore District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Versus Income-tax Officer, TDS, Ward I(5), Coimbatore,   15/10/2015.  

  Satya Developers Pvt Ltd. & Another Versus Pearey Lal Bhawan Association & Another,   13/10/2015.  

  The South African Broadcasting Corporation Soc Limited & Others Versus Democratic Alliance & Others,   08/10/2015.  

  Asish Debnath & Another Versus Ginia Devi Dhelia ,   30/09/2015.  

  Belgaum Merchants Co-op Credit Society Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Belgaum,   21/09/2015.  

  Grant Tomlinson Versus Ramsey Food Processing PTY Limited,   12/08/2015.  

  Jawahar Singh Versus United Bank of India & Others,   06/08/2015.  

  Rajendra Shankar Shukla & Others Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others,   29/07/2015.  

  Bhupinder Singh Sodhi & Others Versus Union of India & Others,   16/07/2015.  

  Abhinav Outsourcings Pvt. Ltd. Versus Rajesh Nair,   14/07/2015.  

  Robert T. Strickland & Others Versus Attorney General of Canada,   09/07/2015.  

  Edenred (UK Group) Limited & Another Versus Her Majesty's Treasury & Others,   01/07/2015.  

  Anson Versus Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs,   01/07/2015.  

  Rejean Hinse Versus Attorney General of Canada & Others,   19/06/2015.  




#LawyerServices #bestlegalsoftware #legalsoftware #judgment #caselaw

  "2001 (1) CLT 366"  ==   "2001 (1) CPR 58"  ==   "2001 (1) CPC 226"  ==   "2000 (3) CPJ 302"  ==   ""  







    L. Manoharan President:1. In view of the contention raised by the opposite parties in Para 3 of their version that since the value of the relief exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and has also filed a statement showing the value of the relief claimed Rs. 20 72 248/- complaint was posted for considering the question of jurisdiction.2. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the opposite parties that the value of the relief claimed has to be assessed adding the interest on the principal amount also and the amount so arrived at should be treated as the value of the relief as on the date of the complaint when the value is so assessed according to the learned Counsel the value being Rs. 20 72 248/- this Commission does not have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as per Section 17(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. On the other hand the learned Counsel for the complainant maintained that since the principal amount claimed is only Rs. 11 03 788/- the value of the relief should be treated as the said amount that being the position the complaint is entertainable before this Commission.3. The first relief in the complaint is to pass an order directing the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs. 11 03 788/- with interest at 18% from September 1994 till the date of payment as well as compensation. The argument of the learned Counsel for the complainant cannot be accepted because for the purpose of jurisdiction the valuation of the relief must be as on the date of the institution. The first relief is for the principal amount of Rs. 11 03 788/- with interest at 18% from September 1994. Therefore the value of the first relief must be the principal mentioned above alongwith interest at 18% from September 1994 till the institution of the complaint that is 15.7.1999. Sufficient indication is there from the wording of Section 17(a)(i) of the Act itself wherein it is enjoined that where the value of the goods or service and the compensation is Rs. 5 00 000/- and above but does not exceed Rs. 20 00 000/- the complaint has to be filed before the State Commission. Since the value has to be assessed alongwith the compensation in the context the claim of interest has to be also reckoned in deciding the value of the relief. When such is the position as noted statement filed since the value exceeds Rs. 20 00 000/- this Commission does not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the same. At this stage the Counsel submits he would file an application for amending the relief portion. All that to be said is no such application having been filed we need not consider the merits of such an application. In view of the above the complaint cannot be entertained before this Commission consequently the complaint is returned for presentation before the proper Forum.