KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL 624/11

JUDGMENT DATED: 31..3..2012

PRESENT

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU  : PRESIDENT

SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA              : MEMBER

1. Jayaprakash Balakrishnan,               : APPELLANTS

    Srividya, KMV Road, Kottayam – 1,

    Rep. by PA Holder G.Jayachandra Raj,

    Parameswarath House,

    Panachikkavu.P.O., Perunna West.

2. Anju Ravindran,

         -do- do-

(By Adv.V.T.Rejimon)

           Vs.

1. ICICI Banl Ltd., Bandra                           : RESPONDENTS

    Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai.

2. The Branch Manager, ICICI Bank,

     CSI Ascension Buildings, Kottayam – 2. 

(By Adv.Suja.R)    

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU  : PRESIDENT

          The appellant is the complainant in CC.279/10 in the file of CDRF, Kottayam.  The appeal is filed over the order in IA 868/10 with respect to the preliminary issue as to the valuation of the complaint.  The Forum has held that the complainant has to be valued for Rs.75 lakhs which  is the amount covered by the loan with respect to which the reliefs are sought and that the Forum  lacked pecuniary jurisdiction.

          2. The reliefs  sought in the complaint are No.1 to set aside the demand notice with respect to Rs.3,75,710.89 and No.2 to direct the opposite party  not to initiate  for recovery proceedings against the complainants until loan amount is disbursed with the consent of the complainants and according to the contentions in the loan agreement and the agreement with the builder which was accepted by the opposite parties etc.  The case of the complainant is that he was sanctioned a loan of Rs.85,50,000/- by the opposite party bank and that the entire amount was disbursed to the builder without the consent of the complainant.  Out of the above 37 lakh has been released by the bank form the bank account of the complainant without his consent.  As EMI were not paid subsequently demand notice has been issued with respect to the then due EMIs amounting to Rs.37,75,710.89.

          3. The counsel for the appellant has relied on the decision in Suresh vs Gouri Amma 1989 I KLT short notes 55 wherein the High Court has held that plaintiff has sought only for injunction restraining defendant from releasing an amount with him the proper court fee to be paid is to be determined applying sec.27 (c ) of the Court Fees Act and that the court fee is to be assessed on the basis of the averments in the plaint.

          4. We find that as per Rule 9(A) (2) of the Consumer Protection Rules 1987 and as per the table provided therein  the fee to be paid is for the total value of goods and services and the compensation claimed.  In the instant case the realization of the loans sought to be restrained  evidently amounts to more than Rs.20lakhs.  Hence clearly the Forum lacks pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as noted by the Forum.  In the circumstances we find that there is no illegality in the order of the Forum.  The situation existed in the judgment cited is different.  In the result the appeal is dismissed.

          Office is directed to forward the LCR along with the copy of this order.

          JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU  : PRESIDENT

          SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA              : MEMBER

ps