Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/78/2017

Suraj Mohan - Complainant(s)

Versus

India Bulls Housing Finance Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Ravinder Pal Singh Adv.& Dharindra Shukla Adv.

13 Feb 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	78/2017
Date of Institution	:	23.01.2017
Date of Decision	:	13.02.2017

 

                                       

                                               

1.     Suraj Mohan s/o Sh.Sat Parkash Sharma r/o H.No.228-A, Sector 32-A, Chandigarh

 

2.     Neena Kumari wife of Sh.Suraj Mohan r/o H.No.228-A, Sector 32-A, Chandigarh

                                ...  Complainants.

Versus

India Bulls Housing Finance Ltd., SCO No.337-338, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh 160036 through its Branch Manager/Authorized Representative.

…. Opposite Party.

 

BEFORE:    SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

SHRI RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

Argued by: Sh.Dharindra Shukla, Adv. for the complainants.

 

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.         In brief, the case of the complainants is that in the month of July, 2015, they availed a housing loan to the tune of Rs.40,00,000/- @ 13.5% p.a. on the floating rate for purchasing a residential property at Chandigarh for the term of 20 years from the OP-Bank. In October, 2015, the official of LIC Housing Finance Ltd. offered the said housing loan @ 10.5% p.a. on floating rate and, therefore, they decided to shift their existing housing loan from OP-Bank to LIC Housing Finance Ltd.  Subsequently, on 27.10.2015, the complainants approached the OP for foreclosure of the home loan. According to the complainants, the OP had charged the foreclosure charges to the tune of Rs.91,319.44P on the outstanding principal amount as per the account statement dated 27.10.2015 despite their  protest in violation of the instructions of the RBI issued vide  Circulars (Annexures C-3 and C-4). Alleging that the aforesaid acts of omission and commission amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP, the complainants have filed the instant complaint seeking the refund of the foreclosure charges alongwith Rs.2 lacs as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment besides Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses.
2.         We have heard the learned counsel for the complainants at the preliminary hearing.
3.         After hearing the Counsel for the complainants at the preliminary hearing and going through the documentary evidence on record, we are of the considered view that the complaint is liable to be dismissed for want of pecuniary jurisdiction in view of the principle of law laid down in the latest judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission passed in the case titled as  Ambrish Kumar Shukla & 21 Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., CC No.97 of 2017, decided on 7.10.2017. In para No. 15 of the judgment while dealing with reference dated 11.8.2017, the Hon'ble National Commission has held as under:-

“Issue No.(i)

        It is the value of the goods or services, as the case may be, and not the value or cost of removing the deficiency in the service which is to be considered for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction.

Issue No.(ii)

Xxxxxx

Issue No.(iii)

xxxxxx

Issue No. (iv)

In a complaint instituted under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, the pecuniary jurisdiction is to be determined on the basis of aggregate of the value of the goods purchased or the services hired or availed by all the consumers on whose behalf or for whose benefit the complaint is instituted and the total compensation claimed in respect of such consumers.”

                From the afore extracted para,  it is evident that It is the value of the goods or services, as the case may be, and not the value or cost of removing the deficiency in the service which is to be considered for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction. The Hon’ble National Commission has further held that while determining pecuniary jurisdiction by the consumer Fora they are required to take into consideration the aggregate value of the goods purchased or services hired or availed by consumer plus compensation.   In the instant case, as per the own version of the complainant made in para 2 of the complaint, they had availed the loan to the tune of Rs.40,00,000/- for purchasing a residential property at Chandigarh, which is clearly beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum as prescribed under Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 clearly provides that this Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation if any claimed does not exceeds Rs.20,00,000.    Hence, in view of the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission in  Ambrish Kumar Shukla’s case (supra) this complaint is not maintainable being out of pecuniary ambit of this Forum and the same deserves to be dismissed alone on this ground.

4.         For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is dismissed being not maintainable for want of pecuniary jurisdiction. However, the complainants are at liberty to approach the appropriate authority/Commission, having the pecuniary jurisdiction, under the provisions of law for redressal of their grievance.
5.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

13.02.2017

Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER