Shukla (supra) was rendered by Three Judges Bench of the National Commission, without noting its earlier view of the subject. This issue, whether, when determining pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission/ Consumer Foras, interest is to be added with other relief claimed or not, came up for consideration, before the Three Judges Bench of the National Commission in Shahbad Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. . In the said case,Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. And Ors., II 2003 CPJ 81 (NC) noting similar arguments, it was observed as under:-
3. Complaint (at pp 17-36) was filed with the following prayer : -15-
It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the complaint be allowed and the opposite parties be directed to pay the claim to the tune of Rs. 18,33,000/- plus interest @ 18% from the date of claim till its realization. Also the suitable damages caused to the complainant be ordered to be paid to the complainant.
4. Bare reading of the prayer made would show that the interest claimed by appellant pertains to the period upto the date of filing complaint, pendente lite and future. Rate and the period for which interest has to be allowed, is within the discretion of State Commission and the stage for exercise of such a discretion would be the time when the complaint is finally disposed of. Thus, the State Commission had acted erroneously in adding to the amount of Rs. 18,33,000/- the interest at the rate of 18% per annum thereon till date of filing of complaint for the purpose of determination of pecuniary jurisdiction before reaching the said stage. Order under appeal, therefore, deserves to be set aside. However, in view of change in pecuniary jurisdiction w.e.f. 15.3.2003, the complaint is now to be dealt with by the District Forum instead of State Commission. It was specifically stated that interest claimed by appellant/complainant pertained to the period upto the date of filing complaint, pendente lite and future, need not be added in the relief claimed, to determine pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission/Consumer Foras. It was rightly said that the rate and period for which the interest has to be allowed, is within the discretion of the particular Consumer Fora, and the stage for exercise of such discretion would be the time, when final order is passed. We are of the considered opinion that the view taken is perfectly justified. There may be cases, where the complainant may not be entitled to claim any interest upon the amount paid, like the one, where he is rescinding his contract and further at what rate interest is to be granted will be determined by the competent Consumer Fora, by looking into the facts of each case. All cases cannot be put into a straitjacket formula, to add interest claimed, to determine pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Foras. The interest, which is a discretionary relief, cannot be added to the value of the goods or services, as the case may be, for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Foras. As per provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act) value of the goods purchased or services plus (+) compensation claimed needs to be added only, for determining pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Foras. As per ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., Civil Appeal , we would like to follow the viewNo.10941-10942 of 2013, decided on 04.12.2015 expressed by Three Judges Bench (former Bench) of the National Commission in (supra), in preference to the ratio ofShahbad Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. case judgment passed by a Bench of co-equal strength (subsequent Bench) of the National Commission in the case of Ambrish Kumar Shukla case (supra). In (supra), it was specifically observed by theNew India Assurance Co. Ltd. case Supreme Court that when a former Bench of co-equal strength has given a finding -16- qua one legal issue, it is not open to the subsequent Bench of co-equal strength to opine qua that very legal issue and give a contrary finding. At the maximum, the subsequent Bench of co-equal strength can refer the matter to the President/Chief Justice of India to constitute a bigger Bench, to look into the matter and reconsider the legal proposition. It was further specifically held that, in case, there are two contrary views by the former and later co-equal strength Benches, the former will prevail. It was so said by looking into the ratio of judgment rendered by the Five Judges Bench of the Supreme Court of India, in Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra wherein,Community & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (2005) 2 SCC 673, when dealing with similar proposition, it was observed as under:-
12. Having carefully considered the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the parties and having examined the law laid down by the Constitution Benches in the abovesaid decisions, we would like to sum up the legal position in the following terms :- (1) The law laid down by this Court in a decision delivered by a Bench of larger strength is binding on any subsequent Bench of lesser or co-equal strength. (2) A Bench of lesser quorum cannot disagree or dissent from the view of the law taken by a Bench of larger quorum. In case of doubt all that the Bench of lesser quorum can do is to invite the attention of the Chief Justice and request for the matter being placed for hearing before a Bench of larger quorum than the Bench whose decision has come up for consideration. It will be open only for a Bench of coequal strength to express an opinion doubting the correctness of the view taken by the earlier Bench of coequal strength, whereupon the matter may be placed for hearing before a Bench consisting of a quorum larger than the one which pronounced the decision laying down the law the correctness of which is doubted. (3) The above rules are subject to two exceptions : (i) The abovesaid rules do not bind the discretion of the Chief Justice in whom vests the power of framing the roster and who can direct any particular matter to be placed for hearing before any particular Bench of any strength; and (ii) In spite of the rules laid down hereinabove, if the matter has already come up for hearing before a Bench of larger quorum and that Bench itself feels that the view of the law taken by a Bench of lesser quorum, which view -17- is in doubt, needs correction or reconsideration then by way of exception (and not as a rule) and for reasons given by it, it may proceed to hear the case and examine the correctness of the previous decision in question dispensing with the need of a specific reference or the order of Chief Justice constituting the Bench and such listing. Such was the situation in Raghubir Singh and Hansoli Devi.
In Ambrish Kumar Shukla case (supra), ratio of judgment- Shahbad Cooperative (supra) was not even discussed and considered. In view of aboveSugar Mills Ltd. proposition of law laid down by the Five Judges Bench in Central Board of and also Three Judges Bench of the SupremeDawoodi Bohra Community & Anr.`s Court, in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. (supra), it is not open to the Bench of co-equal strength to give contraryLtd. case findings, to the view already expressed by a Former Bench of same strength. In (supra), decided on 02.04.2003, it wasShahbad Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. case specifically observed by Three Judges Bench of the National Commission that when determining pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Foras, interest component claimed by the complainant/party, is not to be added. We are of the considered view that in view of proposition of law, as explained above, the view taken in Shahbad (supra), to determine pecuniary jurisdictionCooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. case without taking interest claimed, will prevail. As such, in the present case, we are not looking into the interest claimed by the complainant, when determining pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. If the interest part is excluded, the amount claimed in the relief clause fell below Rs.1 crore and above Rs.20 lacs. Hence, this Commission has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint. In view of above, the objection raised by the opposite parties, in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail and the same stands rejected. Thus, the objection taken by the opposite party, that this Commission lacks pecuniary Jurisdiction, being devoid of merit, must fail and the same stands rejected. No other point, was urged, by Counsel for the parties, in all the three complaints. For the reasons recorded above, all the complaints are partly accepted, with costs in the following manner:- In consumer complaint bearing no.775 of 2016 titled as
Sukhvinder Singh Hayer Vs. M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Construction s Pvt. Limited., the opposite party is directed as under:- To refund the amount Rs.66,87,500/- to the complainant, alongwith interest @13% p.a., from the respective dates of deposits onwards. -18- To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (as prayed), for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainant, as also escalation in prices. To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.33,000/- to the complainant. The payment of awarded amounts mentioned at sr.nos.(i) to (iii), shall be made, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the amount mentioned at sr.no.(i) shall carry penal interest @15% p.a., instead of @13%, from the respective dates of deposits onwards, and interest @13% p.a., on the amounts mentioned at sr.nos.(ii) and (iii), from the date of filing of this complaint, till realization. In consumer complaint bearing no.859 of 2016 titled as
Jugraj Singh and ors. Vs. M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Private Limited., the opposite party is directed as under:- To refund the amount Rs.22,50,000/- to the complainants no.1 and 2, alongwith interest @13% p.a., from the respective dates of deposits onwards. To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.1,25,000/-, for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainants no.1 and 2, as also escalation in prices. To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.33,000/- to the complainants no.1 and 2. The payment of awarded amounts mentioned at sr.nos.(i) to (iii), shall be made, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the amount mentioned at sr.no.(i) shall carry penal interest @15% p.a., instead of @13%, from the respective dates of deposits onwards, and interest @13% p.a., on the amounts mentioned at sr.nos.(ii) and (iii), from the date of filing of this complaint, till realization. In complaint bearing no.860 of 2016, titled as
Daljit Singh Mahal and another Vs. M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Ltd., the opposite party is directed as under:- -19-
iii. To refund the amount Rs.40,42,500/- to the complainants, alongwith interest @13% p.a. The amounts paid shall be refunded, while calculating interest ordered, from 18.07.2014, when first payment was actually made by the complainants to the opposite party, and thereafter, on subsequent dates of payments made, onwards. To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.2 lacs, for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainants, as also escalation in prices. To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.33,000/- to the complainants. The payment of awarded amounts mentioned at sr.nos.(i) to (iii), shall be made, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the amount mentioned at sr.no.(i) shall carry penal interest @15% p.a., instead of @13%, in the manner ordered above, and interest @13% p.a., on the amounts mentioned at sr.nos.(ii) and
(iii), from the date of filing of this complaint, till realization. However, it is made clear that, if the complainant(s) in any of the above complaints, have availed loan facility from any banking or financial institution, for making payment towards the said units, it will have the first charge of the amount payable, to the extent, the same is due to be paid by them (complainants). Certified copy of this order be placed in the connected files, referred to above. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion Pronounced. 23.03.2017 Sd/- [JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)] PRESIDENT Sd/- (DEV RAJ) MEMBER -20- Sd/- (PADMA PANDEY) MEMBER -21-