The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar has held that for consumer cases pending prior to the coming into force of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission shall be treated as unlimited, in terms of the 1998 Gazette Notification which omitted the upper pecuniary limit.
The Court held that a legislative anomaly created by a subsequent amendment, which purported to substitute a pecuniary limit that had already been omitted, cannot be permitted to render claimants remediless. The Court quashed the orders of the State Commission dismissing complaints solely on the ground of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction and remanded the matters for adjudication on merits.
The Court was hearing an appeal and a writ petition involving similar issues, where the compensation claimed exceeded Rs. fifty lakhs and the State Commission had disallowed the complaints solely on the ground of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction, without going into the merits of the case. The appellants/petitioners challenged the dismissal, contending that the State Commission had erred in relying upon a judgment which did not deal with the statutory provision governing pecuniary jurisdiction.
The matter was heard by a Bench of Chief Justice Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Mohd Yousuf Wani, who observed,
“Thus, this Court is also concerned that any person cannot be rendered remediless for seeking compensation just because there is a legislative anomaly which is occurring for the pre-2019 cases.”
Background
The compensation claimed by the appellants/petitioners was above Rs. fifty lakhs, and the State Commission had disallowed the complaints only on the ground that they were non-maintainable due to lack of pecuniary jurisdiction. The Commission had admittedly not gone into the merits of the case.
The appellants/petitioners contended that the case of Met Life India Insurance Company Ltd & Another v. Abdul Aziz Khan, which was relied upon by the J&K State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Srinagar, was not applicable, and that the distinction between ratio decidendi and obiter dicta had not been appreciated by the Commission.
The counsel for the appellants/petitioners traced the legislative history, starting from the Jammu and Kashmir Consumer Protection Act, 1987, wherein Section 15 provided for a pecuniary limit initially fixed at Rupees fifty thousand to Rupees ten lakhs. By an amendment in 1997, the words "rupees fifty thousand" were substituted by "rupees five lakhs" and "rupees ten lakhs" by "rupees thirty lakhs".
Thereafter, a Gazette notification of 1998 omitted the words "rupees thirty lakhs", which, according to the counsel, amounted to removing the upper cap of pecuniary jurisdiction, resulting in remedies for claims above Rs. fifty lakhs being available before the State Commission.
The counsel submitted that until 2019, when the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 became applicable after the repeal of the 1987 Act, the Commission was entertaining all claims of pecuniary jurisdiction above Rs. fifty lakhs, as otherwise the claimants would have been rendered remediless. It was further submitted that the remedy of appeal would not suffice because non-examination of the case on merits would render a person remediless at a particular stage.
Court's Observation
The Court observed that the narrow compass of the prayer pertained only to cases which were pre-2019, when the Act of 1987 was applicable, and where a remedy before the State Commission had been denied only on the ground that the pecuniary jurisdiction exceeded the limit of Rs. fifty lakhs, whereas the remedy of the National Commission was not available.
The Court traced the amendments to Section 15 of the 1987 Act. The Court noted that the amendment made in 1997 substituted the pecuniary limits, and the amendment made in 1998 omitted the words "but does not exceed rupees thirty lakhs".
The Court further noted that the amendment made in 2011 substituted the words "rupees five lacs" and "rupees thirty lacs" with "rupees ten lacs" and "rupees fifty lacs" respectively. The Court observed,
“The omission in between has not been dealt with, which has led to a legislative anomaly whereby the legislation has substituted Rupees thirty lakhs, whereas the limit of Rupees thirty lakhs was not even in existence, as it stood omitted way back through an amendment made in the year 1998.”
The Court further observed that the complete dispute pertained only to the period before the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 came into existence, which had already provided for the pecuniary limits before the District Commission, State Commission, and National Commission. The Court noted that after the 2019 Act, a person aggrieved would never be rendered remediless, as there would always be a forum before the National Commission.
The Court held,
“Thus, this Court is convinced that the pre-2019 cases have to be dealt with in the given perspective where the meaningful remedy is available to all persons seeking compensation above Rupees fifty lakhs and the matters are pending before the State Commission.”
The Court relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dhannalal v. Kalawatibai and Others (2002), and the decisions of the Calcutta High Court in Ashok Kumar Jaiswal v. Ashim Kumar Kar (2014) and the Rajasthan High Court in Anil Agarwal v. Suresh Chand Tiwari, which held,
“If a man has a right he must have a means to vindicate and maintain it, and a remedy if he is injured in the exercise and enjoyment of it; and indeed it is vain thing to imagine a right without a remedy for want of right and want of remedy are reciprocal.”
The Court noted that the reasoning was based on the doctrinal moorings of Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium, which the Indian Judiciary has consistently invoked to ensure that justice is not denied due to procedural lacunae.
The Court carefully examined the judgment in Met Life India Insurance Company Limited, which had been relied upon by the State Commission, and found that though it mentioned Section 15 of the Act of 1987, it had not drawn any conclusion or precedent-oriented mandate to be followed regarding Section 15. The Court held,
“The Obiter Dicta cannot have a binding value in the aforesaid perspective.”
The Court further held: “The Commission has been following this position of no upper limit for a number of years, as mentioned by the learned counsels. The opening of the upper pecuniary limit beyond the 2011 amendment, while taking into consideration the omission of Rs. thirty lakhs by the 1998 notification, was the correct position of law.”
The Court observed that the legislature, while making the amendment in 2011, substituted the upper pecuniary limit of Rupees thirty lakhs with an upper pecuniary limit of Rupees fifty lakhs without realising that the limit of Rupees thirty lakhs was not even in existence, as the upper pecuniary limit was consciously omitted by the subsequent notification of 1998. The Court held,
“Thus, on the one hand, the legislative intention was clear to have an unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction before the State Commission in pre-2019 cases by the amendment made in 1998, on the other hand, the so-called substitution in 2011 created a cap without creating a remedy.”
The Court, making a purposive interpretation of the legal position, laid 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. The Court reamarked,
“Thus, for all such pending cases, the upper pecuniary limit shall be unlimited, as the National Commission would not have a jurisdiction in those cases until the new Act of 2019 has come into vogue.”
On a cumulative consideration of the findings above both the appeal and the writ petition were allowed, and the impugned orders were quashed. The matters were remanded to the Jammu and Kashmir State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission for consideration from the stage at which the proceedings were concluded, in accordance with law.