Complaint No.98/2021

Filed on.13/12/2021

Disposed on.28/01/2022

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)

DATED THIS THE 28^th DAY OF JANUARY 2022

PRESENT

SRI RAVI SHANKAR – JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI – LADY MEMBER

COMPLAINT NO. 98/2021

Mr. Tarun Agarwal S/o Mr. Tej Kumar Agarwal,

Aged about 40 years,

R/o No.503, Landmark Apartments,

New Hyderabd Colony, Lucknow-226 007.

……….Complainant

(By Sri. MG Kumar Law Firm, Adv.,)

V/s

1.       Axis Bank, Rep. by its Manager,

          Having its office at; No.8, 3^rd Floor,

          Sona Towers, 32^nd E Cross, 4^th T Block,

          Jayanagar, Bangalore-560 041.

2.       M/s Faith Inc. Rep. by its Partner,

          Mr.Vijay Appachu K.G. having its office at;

          No.1666, 27^th Main, 2^nd Sector,

          HSR Layout, Bangalore-560 102.

          Also at: #75/3, 21^st A cross,

          24^th Main, 1^st Sector, HSR Layout,

          Bangalore-560 102.

3.       Mr. P.K. Chandrashekar, A/a 43 years,

          S/o B. Krishnappa, R/at No.446,

          Ground Floor, 28^th Main, 1^st Sector,

          HSR Layout, Bangalore-560 102.

4.       Mr. C.Babu Reddy, A/a 44 years,

          S/o Mr.Chikkaramaiah Reddy,

          R/at No.74, 1^st Avenue, 4^th Main,

          Teachers Colony, Venkatapura,

          Bangalore-560 034.

5.       Sri. Rajkumar, A/a 52 years,

          S/o Mr.Chandrashekar Reddy A.R.

          R/at No.259/D, 7^th Cross,

          HSR Layout, Bangalore-560 102.

6.       M/s Urban Estates Rep. by its Partners,

          Having its Office at No.523,

          Ground Floor, 24^th Main Sectors,

          HSR Layout, Bangalore – 560 102.

……….Opposite Parties

:ORDER:

By Sri. Ravishankar – Judicial Member.

          This complaint is filed U/s 47 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 against the Opposite Parties alleging deficiency in service and prays to direct the Opposite Parties for rescind the home loan agreement and loan Account No.PHR000900825407 and to cancel the sale agreement dated:26.09.2013 and refund a sum of Rs.13,10,675/- with 18% interest thereon along with Rs.5,00,000/- towards damages and Rs.1,00,000/- towards the costs. 

2.       We have heard the arguments of complainant on admission.

3.       The counsel for complainant submits that initially the complainant has filed the complaint before the District Commission, Bnagalore in C.C.No.252/2016, wherein the District Commission returned the complaint to the complainant for want of pecuniary jurisdiction by giving liberty to file the complaint before the Commission having jurisdiction.          

4.       We have perused the complaint copy and prayer of the complaint, wherein the complainant requested to direct the Opposite Parties for rescind the home loan agreement and loan Account No.PHR000900825407 and to cancel the sale agreement dated:26.09.2013 and refund a sum of Rs.13,10,675/- with 18% interest thereon along with Rs.5,00,000/- towards damages and Rs.1,00,000/- towards the costs. 

5.       In the present case, the complainant has prays direction against the Opposite Party to refund a sum of Rs.13,10,675/- with interest @ 18% thereon and Rs.5,00,000/- towards damages and Rs.1,00,000/- (in all Rs.19,10,675/-) towards costs along with other prayer that is not concerned to the pecuniary jurisdiction.  But the District Commission considered the total value of consideration of the Flats and sanction of loan by the Bank and thereby comes to the conclusion that the District Commission has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, which in our opinion is not just and proper, because the Bank has not released the full amount and even first disbursement of loan, there was no progress in the project and hence the complainant filed a complaint with a direction to refund the amount of Rs.13,10,675/- and Rs.5,00,000/- towards damages and Rs.1,00,000/- towards litigation expenses. 

6.       The District Commission instead of entertaining the complaint; returned the compliant to the complainant holding that the District Commission has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the compliant by considering the value of the sale consideration of the Flats and sanction of loan amount, which in our opinion is not just and proper.  Accordingly, office is directed to return the complaint along with the documents if any filed to the complainant for presentation before the II Additional District Consumer Commission and that the said District Commission is directed to receive the complaint and decide the case in accordance with law, except on the point of pecuniary jurisdiction after issuing notice to both parties.   Accordingly, complaint is disposed-of

Sd/-                                                                                         Sd/-

(Sunita C.Bagewadi)                                         (Ravishankar)

     Lady Member                                            Judicial Member.

Tss