Delhi

StateCommission

CC/935/2018

M/S GYAN SHAKTI EDUCATION WELFARE TRUST - Complainant(s)

Versus

CORPORATION BANK - Opp.Party(s)

R.M. SINHA

06 Aug 2018

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments :06 08.2018

Date of Decision : 13.08.2018

COMPLAINT NO.935/2018

In the matter of:

 

M/s. Gyan Shakti Education Welfare Trust,

R/o. 7 Ajanta Apartment, I.P. Extn.,

Patparganj, Delhi-110092.                                                                            .........Complainant

 

Versus

 

Corporation Bank,

R/o. Laxmi Nagar District Centre,

Delhi-110092.                                                                                                 ......Opposite Party

 

CORAM

Hon’ble Sh. O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

Hon’ble Sh. Anil Srivastava, Member

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                                               Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                        Yes/No

Shri O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

JUDGEMENT

 

1.       The present complaint at the stage of admission raises a short question as to whether this Commission has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  According to complainant itself, OP sanctioned a loan of Rs.1000 lakhs, in other words Rs.10 crores for a period of 81 months including initial moratorium  of 15 months. The same was repayable in 22 quarterly installments with interest @13.95%. Lot of correspondence took place regarding waiver of penal interest charged by OP for not submitting the credit rating every year. Ultimately the complainant opted to close the credit limit by paying the entire amount at once. Vide letter dated 05.04.2018 complainant requested for closer of loan and release of mortgaged property. The complainant paid Rs.2,38,650/- and Rs.33,30,000/- as pre payment chares for pre payment of loan for a balance period of four years.

2.       Now this complaint has been filed  for directing the OP to refund pre payment of loan penalty to the tune of Rs.33.30 lakhs and penalty for submitting credit rate certificate, little late to the tune of Rs.9,83,422/- .

3.       The counsel for the complainant submitted that the amount claimed by the complainant is within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission.

4.       The three Member Bench of National Commission in Amrish Shukla decided on 07.10.2016 held that it is the value of service agreed to be provided and not the value of deficiency in service which matter for the purpose of determining pecuniary jurisdiction. It was in that light that in case of a flat booked for Rs.1.5 crore, jurisdiction would lie with National Commission irrespective of the fact that the amount paid by the complainant and sought to be refunded by him is less than Rs.1 crore.

5.       In the case in hand the amount of loan taken by the complainant from OP was Rs.10 crore. The complaint is beyond pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. The complaint is directed to be returned to the complainant for being filed it National Commission.

6.         Copies of the order be sent to complainant free of cost.

 

 

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)                                (O.P. GUPTA)             

    MEMBER                                               MEMBER (JUDICIAL)