DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL)
ISBT KASHMERE GATE DELHI
CC/ 64/2017
No. DF/ Central/ Date
Dr. Praveer Kumar, Astha Health Care,
40 Ft. Road, Badarpur, New Delhi – 110044
…..COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
(i) The Manager
Loan Department, HDFC Bank Ltd.,
2nd Floor, Indian Express Building,
Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,
ITO, New Delhi - 110002
(ii) Aditya Puri, C.E.O./M.D.,
HDFC Bank Limited,
HDFC House, Senapati Bapat Marg,
Lower Parel (West), Mumbai - 400013
…..OPPOSITE PARTIES
Quorum : Ms. Rekha Rani, President
Mrs. Manju Bala Sharma, Member
ORDER
Rekha Rani, President
1. Instant complaint is filed U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 as amended up to date (in short the Act) by Dr. Praveer Kumar (in short the complainant) pleading therein that complainant applied for Personal loan of Rs.16,00,000/- from HDFC Bank Ltd., (in short OPs) but OPs increased the loan amount to Rs. 30,00,000/- without the consent of the complainant. Although OP sanctioned loan amount of Rs. 30,00,000/- to the complainant vide loan account No. 43733534 but OP issued DD bearing No. 573549 dated 30/11/2016 for a sum of Rs. 16,11,994/- and assured the complainant that rest of the amount would be released to him very soon. OPs illegally charged Rs. 24,105/- as processing fee of the said loan. Thereafter OP adjusted a sum of Rs.8,82,683/- towards AccountNo.37403602 without the consent of the complainant and also closed the said account again without the consent of the complainant. When complainant raised objection OPs informed complainant that amount of Rs. 4,76,152/- would be transferred into his account but the same was not done. Complainant sent a legal notice dated 19/12/2016 to OPs to accept his request for loan cancellation and to pay Rs. 15,00,000/- as compensation. Complainant has prayed for direction to the OPs to cancel the loan account and to pay a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation.
2. Notice of complaint was issued to the OPs who appeared and filed reply. It is submitted on behalf of the OPs that complainant vide his loan application dated 16.11.2016 applied for loan facility of Rs. 40,00,000/- from the OP Bank for commercial purpose. It is further stated that at the time when said loan facility was applied by the complainant it was agreed that a part of the new loan availed by him would be used to close the previous Self Employed Professional Loan having account no. 37403602; and further a sum of Rs. 16,11,994/- shall be paid to close the Bajaj Finance Loan Account. That thereafter, the balance money shall be remitted in the Complainant’s bank account with OP. Further it is pleaded that after processing the loan application of the Complainant the OP sanctioned him a loan of Rs. 30,00,000/- under loan account no. 43733534 and as per the terms of the agreement between the parties and the advise of the complainant, a D.D. bearing no. 573549 dated 30.11.2016 for sum of Rs. 16,11,994/- in favour of Bajaj Finance Limited Loan A/C No. 579PR025326897 Praveen Kumar was issued, so as to close the Bajaj Finance Loan which was a precondition to the disbursal of Loan Amount. It is also stated that as agreed between the parties the closure certificate from Bajaj Finance Ltd. was to be produced by the complainant to the satisfaction of the OP, only then the remaining amount of Rs. 4,76,152/- was to be released to the complainant’s loan account and that the complainant failed to produce the aforesaid certificate thus the remaining amount of Rs. 4,76,152/- was not transferred to the complainant’s loan account due to non compliance on the part of the complainant with regards to the precondition for disbursement of loan. It is also stated that as per the loan agreement, the rate of interest was @11.99% per annum and not 11.49% per annum as stated by the complainant. It is also stated that as a goodwill gesture, OP waived the processing fee charges of Rs. 24,105/-, interest amount of Rs. 14,782/- and stamp duty of Rs. 139/-. It is denied that the complainant applied for a personal loan of Rs. 16,00,000/- and that the OP sanctioned loan of Rs. 30,00,000/- without the consent of complainant.
3. We have heard Shri Amit Sharma Counsel for Complainant.
4. OP has placed on record copy of loan application form duly signed by the complainant vide which complainant applied for loan of Rs. 40,00,000/-. The said loan application form is available at page no. 16(Annexure – R 2). At page no. 20(Annexure R – 4) complainant requested OP to grant him a business loan of Rs.30,00,000/-. At page no. 26 (Anxxure-R-6) complainant wrote a letter to the OP (Declaration towards End Use of Funds) vide which he confirmed that he had applied for loan of Rs. 30,00,000/- which was required by him for business purpose. When we showed these documents to Learned Counsel for complainant which indicated that complainant had applied for business loan of Rs. 30,00,000/-Learned Counsel submitted that these documents were blank when they were got signed by the OP bank from the complainant. He further stated that the amount was filled later on by the OP. In complaint itself complainant has stated that OP had sanctioned loan amount of Rs. 30,00,000/- in his favour. The said amount is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. The same question again came up before National Commission in Rajkishore V/s TDI Infrastructure Ltd III (2017) CPJ 155. In that case total sale
price of the property was above Rs. 20,00,000/- but complainant sought refund of Rs. 8,06,300/- charged in excess by the OP. Complaint was filed before State Commission which was dismissed vide order dated 16.02.2016 on the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction with liberty to file fresh complaint before District Forum. The complainants went in appeal contending that consumer dispute involved property whose value was above Rs. 20,00,000/-(Rs. Twenty Lacs only) National Commission allowed the appeal and following Ambrish Kumar Shukla (supra) observed that even if there was a small deficiency in the service availed by the complainant the total value of the said service is taken into consideration for the purpose of determining pecuniary jurisdiction.
9. In another case titled 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.”
10. 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”.
10. 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.’’
11. In Gurmukh Singh v/s Greater Mohali Area Development Revision Petition No. 3496/2017 against order dated 11.10.2017 in appeal no. 464/2017 of State Commission, Punjab. Complainant Gurmukh Singh applied for allotment of an apartment with Greater Mohali Area Development (OP). He deposited total amount of Rs. 11,10,000/- in January 2013. He requested OP for refund of the amount deposited by him on the ground that his financial position was not good. Complainant submitted in the consumer complaint that he received a partial refund of Rs. 5,96,091/- and in this way suffered loss of Rs.4,76,910/-. He filed consumer complainant in question seeking refund of the said amount along with another Rs. 1,00,000/- as cost of borrowing the funds. He sought direction to OP to pay him a sum of Rs. 5,67,910/- along with compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- and litigation cost. District forum ordered return of the complaint following the decision of National Commission in Ambrish Kumar Shukla (Supra). State Commission dismissed the appeal. National Commission dismissed the revision petition observing that total value of goods and services is to be taken into consideration for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of a forum and not the total amount paid by an allotte.
12. Since this forum lacks pecuniary jurisdiction to proceed with the matter complaint is ordered to be returned for presentation before appropriate Forum. Copy of this order be sent to the parties as statutorily required. File be consigned to record room.
Announced on this _____ Day of _____ 2018.
