Punjab

StateCommission

CC/800/2018

Rajesh thakur - Complainant(s)

Versus

icici bank - Opp.Party(s)

Monika Gupta

05 Dec 2018

ORDER

                                                          FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PUNJAB

          SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH

 

                   Consumer Complaint No. 800 of 2018

 

 

                                                          Date of Institution   : 08.10.2018                                                   Date of Decision     : 05.12.2018

 

1.      Rajesh Thakur s/o Sh. Babu Ram r/o House No. 8476, New Maya Nagar, Churpur Road, Haibowal Kalan, Ludhiana, Punjab 141001.

 

2.      Indu Thakur w/o Rajesh Thakur r/o House No.8476, New Maya Nagar, Churpur Road, Haibowal Kalan, Ludhiana, Punjab 14001

 

                                                                                     Complainants              

                        Versus

 

1.      ICICI Bank (Regional Office), SCO 9-10-11, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh, through its Regional Manager.

 

2.      ICICI Bank (Top-up Loans  Loans Department), Feorze Gandhi Market Branch, Ludhiana through Branch Manager Loan Branch.

 

3.      JS Enterprises, (Recovery Agency) Shop No.102, New Defense Colony, Zirakpur – Punjab through its Proprietor/Partner/Manager 99143-2000, 0172-2570578.

 

                                                                             Opposite parties

 

Consumer Complaint U/s 17(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended up to date).

 

Quorum:-

          Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member

             Smt. Kiran Sibal, Member.

Present:-

 

          For the complainants  :  Sh. Sunil Mallan Advocate.

         

J. S. KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

                    This case is fixed for preliminary hearing with regard to admission stage of the complaint. The complainant obtained home loan of Rs.8,00,000/-  from OP/Bank. There is dispute with regard to rate of interest in this case between the parties. The complainant has now sought relief from OPs to pay interest @ 24% per annum to him for the receipt of home loan amount from him and further sought compensation of Rs.5 lac for mental harassment and Rs.5 lac for damages and Rs.2,75,000/- as litigation expenses. When put query as to how this Commission has pecuniary jurisdiction to try the complaint, the counsel for complainant contended that the complainant has paid the extra amount of interest to OPs. Section 17(1)(i) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 is the relevant provision of law, which lays down that State Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, where the value of goods or services and compensation, if claimed exceeds Rs.20 lac, but does not exceed Rs.20 lac.  The valuation of service in this case regarding home loan taken by the complainant from OP/Bank is Rs.8,00,000/- only. The complainant now seeks relief of Rs.5,00,000/- for damages and Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and Rs.2,75,000/- as litigation expenses. The amount of compensation and damages for mental harassment is to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- whereas the total value of service is Rs.8,00,000/- of home loan in this case. The  claim presented by complainant is highly exaggerated just  to bring the complaint within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. Similarly, complainant seeks Rs.2,75,000/- as cost of litigation, which is also quite exaggerated and fanciful. In fact, we have come to this conclusion that matter lies within the pecuniary jurisdiction of District Forum only and not within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. The complainant has sought the exaggerated amounts in this complaint in a fanciful and exaggerated manner just to bring the complaint within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission only by skirting the jurisdiction of District Forum.

2.                Consequently, it is held that the complainant has bye-passed the jurisdiction of District Forum only by exaggerating the amounts of compensation and litigation expenses, which are exfacie unreasonable one. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the complaint is ordered to be returned to complainant for its presentation before the District Forum concerned. The registry is directed to return the complaint to complainant with due endorsement of its institution and brief order returning it by this Commission. The original documents filed by the complainant with it be also returned to him by the registry against a receipt. Therefore, the present complaint is dismissed in limine stage for lack of pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission.

3.                Certified copy of the order be supplied to the complainant under rules.

 

                                                                      (J. S. KLAR)

                                                     PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

                                                               (KIRAN SIBAL)

                                                                    MEMBER

 

         

December,  5  2018                                                            

(ravi)