BASANT KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Revision Petitioner before us is the Complainant is Complaint No. 613 of 1992 before the State Commission, Maharashtra. The said complaint petition has been returned by the State Commission to the Complainant for presentation to the District Forum, Etah, U.P. on the ground that since the valuation of the complaint is less than Rs. 5 lakhs, it cannot be maintained before the State Commission in view of the provisions of the Ordinance amending the Consumer Protection Act whereby the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum had been enhanced to Rupees Five lakhs and that of the State Commissioner has been limited to cases having a valuation in excess of Rs. 5 lakhs and not exceeding Rs. 20 lakhs. In our Order M/s. Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Dr. Manoj Ramachandran & Ors. (R.P. No. 400/93) decided on 21.12.1993 = I (1994) CPJ 88 (NC) this Commission has already held that the provisions of the Consumer Protection Amending Ordinance which came into force w.e.f. 18th June, 1993 are only prospective in nature and that cases instituted prior to the said date in accordance with the provisions of law as they originally stood have to be adjudicated by the concerned forums themselves under the provisions of unamended law. The Order of the State Commission holding that complaint petition was not maintainable before it since its valuation was less than Rs. five lakhs though the complaint had been filed in the year 1992 is clearly contrary to the principle enunciated in the above ruling and hence it cannot be sustained. The Revision Petition is accordingly allowed, the Order of the State Commission is set aside. The Complaint Petition No. 613/92 is restored to the file of the State Commission, Maharashtra at Bombay and it is remanded to the State Commission for being disposed of afresh on the merits in accordance with law. The parties will bear their respective costs.