DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL)
ISBT KASHMERE GATE DELHI
CC/178/2015
No. DF/ Central/
Manish Jain
S/o Sh. Sumer Chand Jain
Director of
M/s. Teslek Electrical Contracts Pvt. Ltd.,
Having registered Office at :
Teslek House, A – 240, Vikaspuri,
New Delhi - 18
…..COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
1. Cholamandalam Investment Finance Co. Ltd.
Dare House No. 2, NSC Bose Road, Pusa
Parrys, Chennai – 600001
2. Branch Manager
Cholamandalam Investment Finance Co. Ltd.,
Plot No. 6, First Floor,
New Metro Pillar 81, Main Pusa Road,
New Delhi – 110005
Through its Chairman …… OPPOSITE PARTIES
Quorum: Ms. Rekha Rani, President
Mrs. Manju Bala Sharma, Member
ORDER Date :
Ms. Rekha Rani, President
1. Instant complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 as amended up to date (in short the Act)
pleading therein that he approached OP for a loan of Rs. 50 Lacs. Loan
agreement was executed on 31/08/2013. According to the loan agreement
complainant was liable to pay interest on the loan amount and all other charges from the date of disbursement of the loan. But OP 2 issued instructions to pay EMI @ Rs.69,756/- per month and started taking EMI from the complainant from 1st September 2013 immediately after executing the agreement whereas loan was disbursed to the complainant on 30.11.2013.
After signing the loan agreement complainant came to know that OP charged very high rate of interest. Complainant approached OP but all in vain. Complainant then requested OP for foreclosure of the loan amount on or before January 2015 and stated he was ready to pay entire loan amount with agreed rate of interest till January 2015 and agreed foreclosure penalty at the rate of 2% of the loan amount. After negotiations between the parties complainant deposited Rs. 45 Lacs by demand draft in favour of OP 1 but OPs did not issue any receipt on the excuse that the matter will go for discussion on higher level and kept the draft of the complainant up to April 2015.
OP called the complainant in the first week of April 2015 and arbitrarily demanded Rs. 486395/- and threatened complainant that he would be liable to pay a fine of Rs. 1800/- per day. Complainant was forced to pay Rs,4,86,395/-
to OP 2. Till date complainant has paid Rs. 58,25,608/- to the OPs. Total
outstanding amount as per agreed terms and conditions is Rs. 59,70,171/-
leaving balance of Rs. 1,44,563/-. As complainant is not interested to continue with OPs he sent legal notice dated 03/06/2015 but no action was taken by OPs. OPs are regularly sending ECS of Rs. 70,000/- per month in the account of the complainant. Complainant has prayed that OP be directed to settle the loan account of the complainant at the agreed rate of interest 2% upto February 2015 when part payment of loan i.e. Rs. 45,00,000/- was received by the OP alongwith one wrongly calculated cheque of Rs. 4,86,395/, not to charge any interest or hidden charges or penalties whatsoever and to stop ECS in the account of the complainant against the loan account in question i.e. XOHEDHE00001037498.
2. Notice was issued to the OPs. They contested the claim.
3. We have heard Shri V N Chaturvedi learned counsel for complainant.
Shri Anis Nizami Proxy Counsel for OP.
4. Admittedly complainant borrowed a sum of Rs. 50 Lacs from the OPs. He has allegedly paid Rs. 58,28,608/- to the OPs.
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 Naryan 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 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 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 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 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. In Jivitesh Nayal & Anr. vs M/S. Emaar Mgf Land Limited Case No. 34 of 2015 decided on 02-11-2017 and in Rakesh Mehta vs Emaar Mgf Land Limited Case No. 653 of 2015 decided on 16.10.2007 the National Commission following Ambrish Kumar Shukla (supra) observed as under:
“In terms of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, this Commission possesses the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain a consumer complaint, where the value of the goods or services as the case may be, and the compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint, exceeds Rupees One Crore. As held by a Three-Members Bench of this Commission in CC No.97 of 2016 Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., decided on 07.10.2016, the value of services in
such cases, means the sale consideration agreed to be paid by the flat buyer to the builder. The following view was taken by this commission in CC/198/2015 Dushyant Kumar Gupta Vs Today Homes & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and connected matters, decided on 31.01.2017.
10. 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 24th Day of August 2018.
