Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/1008/2019

Ravinder Singh Barara - Complainant(s)

Versus

India Infoline Finance Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

B.S. Jaspal Adv. & Pearl Jaspal Adv.

01 Nov 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	1008/2019
Date of Institution	:	04.10.2019
Date of Decision	:	01.11.2019

 

                                       

                       

1. Ravinder Singh Barara s/o Sh.Narinder Singh r/o H.No.838, Urban Estate, Sector 7,Ambala City (Age 52 Years).
2. Baljit Kaur wife of Sh.Ravinder Singh Barara r/o H.No.838, Urban Estate, Sector 7,Ambala City (Age 49 Years).

…..Complainants

Versus

1. India Infoline Finance Ltd., 12-A, 13^th Floor, Prinee Crescenzo, C-38 & C-39, G Block, Behind MCA, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051.
2. India Infoline Finance Ltd., SCO No.2907/2908, Sector 22-C, Second Floor, Chandigarh

…. Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE: SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

Argued by:

Ms.Pearl Jaspal, Adv. for the complainants.

                               

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.          Briefly stated, the case of the complainants is that they took a loan of Rs.24,14,478/- from the OPs vide loan a/c No.758364 @ 10.00% p.a. and the same was to be paid in EMI of Rs.25,946/- starting from 05.08.2016 till 05.07.2031.  On 02.07.2019, the complainants evinced their desire to deposit all the outstanding amount upon which the OPs issued a letter dated 04.06.2019 requiring them to deposit a sum of Rs.65,796.41P as pre-pay charges for which the OPs were not entitled to as per law. It has further been averred that the OPs have also charged Rs.670.14 P as per day interest. According to the complainants, the OPs have charged   a sum of Rs.65,796.41P as pre-pay charges in violation of the guidelines of RBI. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainants have filed the instant complaint.
2.         Arguments at the point of pecuniary jurisdiction have been heard.
3.         After hearing the Counsel for the complainants and going through the documentary evidence on record, we are of the considered view that the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground 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 2016, decided on 7.10.2016. In para No. 15 of the judgment while dealing with reference dated 11.8.2016, 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.”

4.         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 is evident from para 2 of the complaint, the complainants have availed the services of the OPs for availing the a loan of Rs.24,14,478/- from the OPs vide loan a/c No.758364, 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 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, keeping in view the provisions of Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and 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.
5.         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 grievances.  The complainants may take advantage of the ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. PSG Industrial Institute, (1995) 3 SCC 583, to seek exclusion of time spent before this Forum. 
6.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.     

               

		Sd/-	Sd/-
Announced		[RAJAN DEWAN]	(PRITI MALHOTRA)
01.11.2019		PRESIDENT	MEMBER