Consumer Commission Must Decide Issue Of Pecuniary Jurisdiction Before Proceeding On Merits: Jharkhand High Court

In a plea concerning a matter entertained by the district consumer disputes redressal commission without first deciding issue of pecuniary jurisdiction, the Jharkhand High Court reiterated that this issue must be decided first by a court or a tribunal before proceeding further. 

The court also emphasized the supervisory role of High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution to intervene in cases exhibiting jurisdictional errors, evident procedural irregularities, or perverse orders.

A single bench of Justice Subhash Chand, observed, “...in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which was repealed in 2019, the statutory jurisdiction are altogether separate. But so far as the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of the India is concerned i.e., only in regard to the jurisdictional error palpable procedural irregularity or perversity in the order by exercising the supervisory jurisdiction may be intervened.”

The petitioner's counsel argued that a complaint was filed with the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Ranchi, where the petitioner was designated as opposite party number 1. He said that the petitioner had at the very outset challenged the District Commission's pecuniary jurisdiction under Section 151 CPC. The petitioner contended that the Commission had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the compliant and this issue should have been decided by the Commission at the very outset without going into the merits of the case.

The District Commission in its August 29 order, despite disposing of the application on jurisdiction directed the petitioner to file written arguments and also directed that the case would attain finality, if the written argument were not filed.Against this the petitioner approached the high court. 

The high court referred to Section 2(e) of the Tribunals Reforms Act, and said that the term "Tribunal" means a Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal or Authority as specified in column (2) of the First Schedule and the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is also enshrined therein. 

It reiterated that the powers granted under Articles 226 and 227 are a "basic feature" of the Constitution of India, and under Article 227 the High Court has been given "supervisory jurisdiction over all courts" within its territorial jurisdiction which includes Tribunals. 

Referring to Supreme Court judgments on the issue the high court thereafter said, “As such, the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the CMP (plea) and the stamp reporting given by the stamp reporter is, hereby, set aside,” the Court held. The court thereafter entertained the petitioner's plea and went on to adjudicate upon the petitioner's challenge to the district commission's order. 

Taking note of the petitioner's contention, the high court referred to  Section 21 CPC, which addresses objections to jurisdiction. In view of the provision, the high court said that the question in regard to jurisdiction should be decided by the Court or the Tribunal as a "preliminary issue".

Noting the petitioner's submission that evidence had concluded, the high court said, “Even if the evidence has also been concluded, the question of jurisdiction i.e., in regard to pecuniary jurisdiction of the Commission has to be decided first, as such, the impugned order by which the Commission has directed the petitioner to file the written argument without deciding the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction first has committed palpable procedural irregularity in passing the impugned order and same can be intervened by invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of the India.,”

The high court thereafter set aside the District Commission's order directed it to decide the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction first. The plea was thus disposed of.

Case Title: BMW India Private Limited vs John Tapan Kongari and Anr

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 165

Click Here To Read Judgement