Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/465/2016

Rakesh Jain - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Bank Limited - Opp.Party(s)

R.M. Dutta Adv.

07 Apr 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	465/2016
Date of Institution	:	05.07.2016
Date of Decision	:	07/04/2017

 

                                       

                                               

1.     Rakesh Jain s/o Sh.Nand Lal Jain  &

 

2.     Mrs.Bindu Jain w/o Rakesh Jain

 

both r/o H.No.142, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh.

                               

...  Complainants.

 

Versus

1.     HDFC Bank Ltd., through its Chairman and its M.D. Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai.

 

2.     The Chairman & M.D., HDFC Bank Ltd., Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai.

 

3.     HDFC Bank Ltd., HDFC Bak House, 2^nd Floor, 28, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh through its Nodal Officer.

 

4.     Zonal Head, HDFC Bank, Bank House, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh.

…. Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:    SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

SHRI RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

Argued by:

 

Sh.R.M.Dutta, Adv. for the complainant

                Ms.Ramandeep Kaur, Adv. for the OPs.   

 

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.          In nutshell, the case of the complainants is that they applied for the loan facility from the OPs-Bank  and they sanctioned DO (Dropline Over Draft) facility of Rs.2,00,00,000/- vide sanctioned letter dated 11.11.2011 (Annexure C-1). Subsequently on 27.02.2015 the complainants preferred to foreclose the DOD facility availed by the OPs by depositing all the money alongwith interest.  It has further been averred that the OPs have charged foreclosure charges to the tune of Rs.3,09,596.74P. According to the complainants, the OP had illegally charged a sum of Rs.3,09,596.74P as foreclosure charges against the circulars dated 07.05.2014 and 14.07.2014 issued by the RBI. It has been asserted that on representation (Annexure C-6), the OPs refused to refund the foreclosure /prepayment charges on the ground that the money was used in the firm in which the complainant is a proprietor. Thereafter, the complainants got served a legal notice dated 05.04.2016 upon the OPs but to no effect. 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.
2.         In their written statement, the OPs took preliminary objections inter alia that Ms.Jainsons outfits, SCO No.24, Sector 17-E,Chandigarh through its Proprietor Mr.Rakesh Jain had availed the overdraft facility of Rs.2 crores for commercial purposes and as such the complainants are not consumers as defined under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It has further been pleaded that RBI guidelines are applicable to the term loans availed by the individual borrowers on floating rate and the DOD was a credit overdraft limit based facility extended on the capacity of the proprietorship firm M/s Jainsons Outfits and the same could not be classified as term loan. It has further been pleaded that the fore closure charges were rightly charged as per the loan agreement. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.         The complainants have filed rejoinder to the written reply of the Opposite Parties controverting their stand and reiterating their own.
4.         We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on record.
5.         After hearing the Counsel for the parties 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 complainants made in the complaint, they had availed the services of the OPs for grant of the overdraft facility to the tune of Rs.2,00,00,000/- qua which the fore closure charges to the tune of Rs.3,09,596.74P  were charged by the OPs from the complainants at the time of the foreclosure of the said loan amount, which is clearly beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum, as prescribed under Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides that this Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation if any claimed does not exceeds Rs.20,00,000.  Hence, keeping in view the provisions of Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and 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.

6.         For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is dismissed being not maintainable for want of pecuniary jurisdiction. However, the complainants are at liberty to approach the appropriate authority/Commission, having the pecuniary jurisdiction, under the provisions of law for redressal of their grievance.  They may take advantage of the ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. PSG Industrial Institute, (1995) 3 SCC 583, to seek exclusion of time spent before this Forum.  
7.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

07.04.2017

Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER