DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL)
ISBT KASHMERE GATE DELHI
CC/191/2016
No. DF/ Central/
Sh. Pawan Kumar Goel,
Son of Late R.R. Goel,
The resident of H.No. G-22/136-137,
Sector – 7, Rohini, Delhi – 110 085
..…..COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
Cholamandalam Investment Finance Co. Ltd.
Through its Manager,
Regd. Office at Pusa Road, Plot No. 6
New Delhi – 110005
….… OPPOSITE PARTY
Quorum: Ms. Rekha Rani, President
Mrs. Manju Bala Sharma, Member
Shri R.S. Nagar, Member
ORDER Date :
Ms. Rekha Rani, President
1. Instant complaint has been filed by Sh. Pawan Kumar Goel (in short the complainant) u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 as amended up to date (in short the Act) pleading therein that he availed a loan of Rs. 49,50,000/- (Rupees Forty Nine Lacs and Fifty Thousand) from Cholomandalam Investment & Finance Co. Ltd., (in short the OP) on 04/10/2012 which was to be repaid by the complainant up to 05/10/2022 in monthly instalments of Rs. 77,603/- each. Similarly, he took the loan of Rs. 25,00,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Lacs) from the OP on
16/10/2018 which was to be repaid up to 05/10/2028 in monthly instalments of
Rs. 33,294/- each. The loan of Rs. 25,000,00/- was cleared in September 2014 and no foreclosure was charged by the OP. Complainant also cleared a loan amount of Rs. 49,50,000/- in January 2014 but OP charged forclosure amount of Rs. 1,95,731/- at the rate of 4% on the loan amount of Rs. 49,50,000/-. The OP is legally bound to refund the said foreclosure amount charged illegally. Complainant sent a legal notice dated 24/02/2015 to the OP for the said purpose but his grievances have not been redressed. Hence the instant complaint seeking direction to OP to refund a sum of Rs. 1,95,731/- with interest @ 18% per annum from January 2004 till its realisation + 50,000/- as damages.
2. Notice of the instant complaint was issued to the OP. OP appeared and contested the claim vide its reply.
3. We have heard Shri Pawan Kumar Goel complainant in person and Shri D.S. Mehta Counsel for OP.
4. We have perused the case file. The loan amount admittedly availed by the Complainant was Rs. 49,50,000/- which is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this forum.
5. As per Section 11 (i) of the Act the District Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction to adjudicate claims where the value of goods and services and the compensation claimed does not exceed Rs. 20 Lacs.
6. Three member bench of National Commission in Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors Vs Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt Ltd in CC No. 97/2016 vide order dated 07.10.2016 observed that value of goods & services and value of the relief
claimed is to be seen for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction instead of value of alleged deficiency.
7. In Daimler Financial Services India Vs Laxmi Narayan Biswal in First Appeal no. 1616 of 2017 decided on 30.08.2017 by Hon’ble National Commission judgment in Ambrish Kumar Shukla (supra) was again referred and following relevant part of the said judgment was quoted:
“Reference order dated 11.8.2016 Issue No. (i) It is evident from a bare perusal of Sections 21, 17 and 11 of the Consumer Protection Act that it's the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed which determines the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum. The Act does not envisage the determination of the pecuniary jurisdiction based upon the cost of removing the deficiencies in the goods purchased or the services to be rendered to the consumer. Therefore, the cost of removing the defects or deficiencies in the goods or the services
would have no bearing on the determination of the pecuniary jurisdiction. If the aggregate of the
value of the goods purchased or the services hired or availed of by a consumer when added to the compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint by
him, exceeds Rs.1.00 Crore, it is this Commission alone which would have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. For instance if a person purchases a machine for more than Rs.1.00 Crore, a manufacturing defect is found in the machine and the cost of removing the said defect is Rs.10.00 lakh, it is the aggregate of the sale consideration paid by the consumer for the machine and compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint which would determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum. Similarly, if for instance, a house is sold for more than Rs.1.00 Crore, certain defects are found in the house, and the cost of removing those defects is Rs.5.00 lakh, the complaint would have to be filed before this Commission, the value of the services itself being more than Rs.1.00 Crore.”
8. The facts of the case in Daimler Financial Services India (supra) were that the complainant had purchased two Hywa Trucks with the financial help of Daimler Financial Services India by taking the loan of Rs. 23,55,945/- for each vehicle. Out of the total loan of Rs. 23,86,995/- for each vehicle, the complainant had already paid the entire loan amount and had agreed to pay the full and final settlement on 05.04.2016 by making payment of Rs. 14,70,000/- and had received the possession of the vehicle on the same day with the further condition that the complainant should withdraw the writ petition bearing no. WP (C ) 2307 of 2016 from the High Court of Odisha. Prior to the liquidation of loan/expiry of the agreement the Daimler Financial Services India had seized the vehicle for which the complainant had approached the High Court of Odisha by way of filing a Writ Petition. The High Court had issued notice and the Daimler Financial Services India after receiving the notice had called the complainant for a settlement. As per the said settlement the complainant had already paid a sum of Rs. 14,70,000/- towards full and final settlement outstanding in respect of both the vehicles. Though the complainant in pursuance to the aforesaid settlement had paid the entire amount towards liquidation of loan and had withdrawn the Writ Petition before the High Court of Odisha, the Daimler Financial Services India taking advantage of the situation had not issued NOC to the complainant. The complainant hence filed a Consumer Complaint before the Odisha State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack for not granting NOC which was termed illegal
deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and for directing Daimler Financial Services India to issue NOC in respect of the two vehicles. The State Commission admitted the consumer complaint which was challenged before the Hon’ble National Commission. The Hon’ble National Commission observed that :
“ Counsel for the appellant has admitted that the respondent/ complainant had taken loan of Rs. 47.74 Lakh, the cost of service and compensation asked for is Rs. 95,000/-. Hence the aggregate value of the cost of service hired or availed of and the compensation claimed by the complainant certainly falls within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission”.
9. Since this forum lacks pecuniary jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim, the instant complaint be accordingly returned to the complainant to be presented before the appropriate forum having jurisdiction. Copy of the same be retained on record. Copy of this order be sent to the parties as statutorily required. File be consigned to record room.
Announced on this 28th Day of February 2019.
