Learned counsel for the complainant is present. Heard on the question of admissibility of the complaint and perused the record.
The fact of the case in brief is that the OPs granted loan of Rs.26,87,945/- in favour of the complainant for purchase of TATA LPT 3110 recoverable in 52 EMIs @ Rs.72,900/- and after purchase, the vehicle was registered vide registration No.OD-05-AF-8887. The complainant has paid 16 installments approximately Rs.10,00,000/-. But the OPs have demanded an illegal demand of legal charges and other charges of Rs.1,11,500/- which they are not entitled to get from the complainant. Due to severe health problem, the complainant defaulted in depositing certain EMIs for which the OPs threatened the complainant to forcibly take over possession of the vehicle. This ultimately led the complainant to file this case U/s 12 of the C.P.Act, 1986 praying for compensation, cost of litigation and directing the OPs for settlement of the loan outstanding against the complainant in respect of the vehicle in question without demanding other charges with interest @ 33% on the overdue amount.
Thus, from the averments made in the complaint petition, we find that the value of the goods purchased and services availed in respect of which, the relief has been sought for in this case, exceeds Rs.20,00,000/- which is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum as prescribed in section- 11(1) of the C.P. Act, 1986. Therefore, in view of the recent decision of Hon’ble National Commission in case of Gurumukh Singh Vrs: Greater Mohali Area Development Authority and Another reported in 2018 (2) CPR 111 (NC), we are of the view that this Forum has got no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint.
Hence in the interest of justice, it is hereby ordered that the complaint be returned to the complainant for being presented in the appropriate Forum having jurisdiction to entertain the same and adjudicate the dispute.
Member Member(W) President
