DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL)
ISBT KASHMERE GATE DELHI
CC/ 438/2016
No. DF/ Central/
1. Dharam Chand Sethia
S/o Late Sh. Mool Chand Sethia
Having an office at Dee Cee Garments
IX/6276, Hari Gali,
Gandhi Nagar,
2. Manju Devi Sethia
W/o Sh. Dharam Chand Sethia
Both Resident of
C-104, Second Floor,
Ramprastha Colony,
Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh
VERSUS
1. ICICI Bank Ltd. E-1, 11th Floor, Videocon Tower
Jhandewalan Extn. , New Delhi-110055
2. ICICI Bank Ltd.,
ICICI Bank Towers, Bandra-Kurla Complex,
Mumbai-400051
3. ICICI Bank Ltd.,
Commercial Banking Group,
K-1, Senior Mall,
Sector-18, Noida-201301
…..OPPOSITE PARTIES
ORDER
Rekha Rani, President
1. Sh. Dharam Chand Sethia and Ms. Manju Devi Sethia (in short the complainants) filed the instant complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 as amended up to date (in short the Act) alleging therein that ICICI
bank (in short the OP 3) had granted a loan of Rs. 30,00,000/- against property bearing no C-104, 2nd floor, Ramprastha, Ghaziabad, U.P.-201301 in the year 2006. The loan was to be repaid in 120 monthly installments and the complainants are regularly paying the installments as per the repayment schedule of OP. The complainants came to know that the OP has increased the interest rate from 10.75% to 11.25% within just 6 months from the date of commencement of the repayment i.e. 10.02.2007 and again increased from 11.25% to 13.25% w.e.f.10.05.2007 without any reason and justification. The complainants immediately approached OP1 and asked for justification for increasing the EMI’s. The complainants also came to know that the complainants were then required to pay 146 EMIs in place of 120 EMIs. The complainants have paid 124 EMIs up to November 2016 but as per the initial sanction, only 120 EMI’s were required to be paid. OP has not reduced the interest rates and is charging an exorbitant rate of interest without any basis. Complainants were forced to pay EMI’s beyond the agreed period. Hence the complaint seeking direction to OP as under:
a) To reduce the interest rate to 10.75% as was agreed at the time of sanction and disbursement of the Loan;
b) To refund the amount of Rs. 2,04,510/-(Rupee Two Lakh Four Thousand Five Hundred Ten Only) or any additional EMI paid by the Complainant to the Opposite Parties due to unilateral and unjustified increase in EMI, subsequent to the filing of this complaint and also to grant interest on the said amount;
c) To release original sale deed pertaining to Property No C-104, 2nd Floor, Ramprastha, Gaziabad, U.P.201301;
d) Not to collect any EMI after 120th EMI paid on 10.07.2016;
e) To pay to the Complainants, damages to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees Five Lacs only) towards immense/mental agony, the humiliation suffered by the Complainants;
f) To pay to the Complainants, cost of the present litigation.
2. On receipt of the notice the OPs appeared and contested the claim vide written statement
3. We have heard Mr. Navneet Dugal with Mr. Arvind Saraswat learned counsel for the complainants and Sh. Sohan Petwal counsel for OPs.
4. In para 4 page 5 of the complaint the complainants have themselves mentioned that the OP 3 had granted a loan of Rs. 30,00,000/- to be repaid in 120 monthly installments which is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this forum.
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 the value of alleged deficiency.
7. 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 a refund of Rs. 8,06,300/- charged in excess by the OP. The complaint was filed before the State Commission which was dismissed vide order dated 16.02.2016 on the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction with the liberty to file a fresh complaint before the 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.
8. 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 the 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.”
9. 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 a 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 a payment of Rs. 14,70,000/- and had received the possession of the vehicle on the same day with a 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 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 the liquidation of the loan and had withdrawn the Writ Petition before the High Court of Odisha, 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 a 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. Since this forum lacks pecuniary jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim, the instant complaint is accordingly returned to the complainant to be presented before the appropriate forum having jurisdiction. Copy of the same is retained on record. Copy of this order is sent to the parties as statutorily required. File be consigned to record room.
Announced on this 30th Day of May 2018.
