DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016

Case No. 179/2010

1.      M/s Raj Kirpal Lumbers Ltd.

          through its  Director Shri Sunil Kumar Gag

          having their at office at 7, Arjun Nagar,

          Kotla Mubarak Pur, New Delhi

2.      Sh. Sunil Kumar Garg

          S/o Shri Raj Kripal

          R/o Flat No.T-1/1601,

          Jaypee Greens, Surajpur

Kasana Road, Greater Noida,

Gautam Budh Nagar-201306 (U.P.)

3.      Mrs. Anjali Garg

          W/o Shri Sunil Garg

R/o Flat No.T-1/1601,

          Jaypee Greens, Surajpur

Kasana Road, Greater Noida,

Gautam Budh Nagar-201306 (U.P.)                           ….Complainants

Versus

1. ICICI Bank Limited

(Home Finance Section)

ICICI Tower, NBCC Place

          Bhisham Pitamah Marg,

          Opposite Sai Baba Mandir,

          Pragati Vihar, New Delhi-110003

2. The Manager

ICICI Home Finance Company Ltd.

Home Loan Department

Green Park Extension,

New Delhi                                                       ….Opposite Parties

                                                 Date of Institution       : 31.03.10            Date of Order             : 23.04.19   

Coram:

Sh. A.S. Yadav, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

ORDER

Member - Kiran Kaushal

1. Succinctly put, the complainant is a company by the name of M/s Raj Kripal Lumbers Ltd. which availed a loan from M/s ICICI Bank Ltd. (OP No.1) through ICICI Home Finance Company Ltd. (OP No.2) for the Director and his wife (hereinafter referred to as complainant No.2 & 3).
2. The OPs had sanctioned the loan to the complainants to the tune of Rs.1,45,00,000/-  and Rs.36,00,000/- respectively in  relation to a residential premises.  The main grievance of the complainants qua OPs are:

1. It is averred that at the time of availing of loan it was assured by the OPs that no pre-payment charges shall be  levied; in the event the company is seeking foreclosure of the loan by making the remaining payment in lumpsum. The OPs, however, levied pre-payment charges to the extent of Rs.2,84,677.81p which amounts to unfair trade practice by OPs.
2. It is next averred that deduction of Rs.4,51,750/- towards one year premium for Home Sales Insurance Product was absolutely unwarranted, the complainant had never requested for it.
3. Adjustment of substantial remittance towards interest even when the loan was nearly four years old.
4. Claiming interest on the amount of Rs.4,51,750/-, though never disbursed. Even after alleged adjustment on alleged insurance the claim of interest cannot be claimed, whereas in the EMI interest on Rs.4,51,750/- is also levied.
   1. In view of the above unfair trade practices and deficiencies, the complainants have prayed for direction to the OPs to pay/refund Rs.17,52,718 alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till realization of the amount. Additionally it is prayed that the OPs be directed to pay Rs.1,50,000/- towards mental agony, harassment and litigation cost.

2.      We have heard the submission on behalf of the complainant and perused the material available on the record.

3.      It is the case of the complainants themselves that the OPs have sanctioned loan to the tune of Rs.1,45,00,000/- and Rs.36,00,000/-.  Hence, the transactions in question are way more than Rs.20 lakhs which is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum. 

4.      Further it is noticed that the complainants have prayed for refund/payment of Rs.17,52,718/- @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization of the amount. Additionally it is prayed that OP be directed to pay Rs.1,50,000/- towards mental agony, harassment and litigation cost. The relief of refund/payment sought and compensation  in the prayer is out of the purview of pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum.  Therefore, the present case is not maintainable in this Forum as has been held by the Hon’ble National Commission in case Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. – 1 (2017) CPJ (NC) and subsequently in C.C. No. 2206/2016 - M/s Advance Ispat (India) Ltd. Vs. M/s Parsvnath Developers decided by the National Commission on 13.07.2017; wherein the value of complaint is to be taken as value of the amount deposited alongwith compensation  claimed. Hence, the complaint is dismissed for not being maintainable on ground  of pecuniary jurisdiction.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations.  Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

Announced on 23.04.19