Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/974/2016

Shashi Kala Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Finance Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Arun Kumar Adv.

12 Dec 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	974/2016
Date of Institution	:	23.11.2016
Date of Decision	:	12.12.2016

 

                                       

                                               

Shahsi Kala Gupta w/o Satinder Kumar Gupta r/o H.No.1, Sector 12, Panchkula.

                                ...  Complainant.

Versus

1.     Bajaj Finance Ltd. through its Geneal Manager, 4^th Floor, Survey # 208/1B, Viman Nagar, Pune-411014.

2.     The General Manager, Bajaj Finance Ltd. 4^th Floor, Survey # 208/1B, Viman Nagar, Pune-411014.

3.     The Branch Manager, Bajaj Finance Ltd., 1^st & 2^nd Floor, SCO No.26, Sector 26-D,Chandigarh -160019.

…. Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:    SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

SHRI RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

Argued by:Sh.Varun Bhardwaj, Counsel for the complainant.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.         In brief, the case of the complainant is that she availed loan of more than Rs.2 crores against the property bearing House No.1 Sector 12, Panchkula from the OPs.  Thereafter the loan amount was sanctioned and disbursed to her. The said loan was to be paid in 204 monthly equated installments w.e.f. 02.10.2015 to 02.09.2032.  However, the complainant paid back the amount of loan with upto date interest on 10.05.2016. It has been alleged that on going through the statements of account, the complainant was shocked to see that a sum of Rs.35000/- as insurance premium was debited on 19.08.2015 from the loan account on account of the building insurance without her knowledge, consent and permission.  It has been alleged that the said amount of Rs.35,000/- has been not been returned despite her repeated requests and service of legal notice. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint claiming the refund of Rs.35,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of its receipt till realization, Rs.5 lacs as damages of business reputation and Rs.50,000/- as litigation charges.
2.         We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant at the preliminary hearing.
3.         After hearing the Counsel for the complainant at the preliminary hearing and going through the documentary evidence on record, we are of the considered view that the complaint is liable to be dismissed for want of pecuniary jurisdiction in view of the principle of law laid down in the latest judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission passed in the case titled as  Ambrish Kumar Shukla & 21 Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., CC No.97 of 2016, decided on 7.10.2016. In para No. 15 of the judgment while dealing with reference dated 11.8.2016, the Hon'ble National Commission has held as under:-

“Issue No.(i)

        It is the value of the goods or services, as the case may be, and not the value or cost of removing the deficiency in the service which is to be considered for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction.

Issue No.(ii)

Xxxxxx

Issue No.(iii)

xxxxxx

Issue No. (iv)

In a complaint instituted under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, the pecuniary jurisdiction is to be determined on the basis of aggregate of the value of the goods purchased or the services hired or availed by all the consumers on whose behalf or for whose benefit the complaint is instituted and the total compensation claimed in respect of such consumers.”

                From the afore extracted para,  it is evident that It is the value of the goods or services, as the case may be, and not the value or cost of removing the deficiency in the service which is to be considered for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction. The Hon’ble National Commission has further held that while determining pecuniary jurisdiction by the consumer Fora they are required to take into consideration the aggregate value of the goods purchased or services hired or availed by consumer plus compensation.   In the instant case, as per the own version of the complainant made in the complaint, she had availed the loan more than Rs.2 crores  against the property in question, qua which the premium of Rs.35,000/- has been debited on 19.08.2015 on account of the building insurance, which is clearly beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum.  Hence, in view of the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission in  Ambrish Kumar Shukla’s case (supra) this complaint is not maintainable being out of pecuniary ambit of this Forum and the same deserves to be dismissed alone on this ground.

4.         For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is dismissed being not maintainable for want of pecuniary jurisdiction. However, the Complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate authority/Commission, having the pecuniary jurisdiction, under the provisions of law for redressal of her grievance.
5.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

12/12/2016

Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER