- // Order on. Exhibit No. 7 // -
(Application dtd. 20.02.2020 for dismissing Complaint
for want of pecuniary jurisdiction)
(Passed this on 23th September 2022)
Shri. Avinash V. Prabhune, Member –
Heard Ld Counsels for both parties at length.
1. Brief facts of the present complaint, as per the pleading, the Complainant is a partnership firm & Complainants No A to C are the partners & carrying out business in the name & styled as “Godavari Traders, which is situated at Nagpur. Complainants are carrying out business for earning their livelihood by means of self employment.
2. It was submitted that the complainants firm had obtained term loan of Rs 4,25,39,198/- from Opposite Party (O.P.) on 29.05.2017 against their property. The Loan Account No is HLAPNAG00338461, which was carrying interest @12% p.a. repayable in 132 instalments of Rs 5,81,846/- each commencing from 05.07.2017. Complainants had paid Rs 58,18,460/- by way of 10 instalments upto 05.04.2018. OP unilaterally increased rate of interest to @12.5% p.a. so Complainant has protested but OP assured to adjust interest rate in future. OP further increased interest rates from 12.5% to 12.70%, 13%, 14%, 17.50 for subsequent periods from 05.07.2018 to 05.10.2019 although there was no contract between the parties for such steep rise in the interest rates for the term loan. OP further increased number of instalments from 132 to 409 at their own. OP had unilaterally modified loan conditions without intimating to Complainants. Complainants had filed present complaint against OP alleging unfair trade practice & deficiency in services. Complainant prayed for issuing directions to OP to restore loan & compensate Complainants for financial losses suffered by them.
3. OP filed written statement as well as present application dtd 20.02.2020 under Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 for dismissal of complaint due to lack of pecuniary jurisdiction to this Commission. OP relied upon judgment passed by Hon NCDRC in the matter of ‘Ambarish Kumar Shukla & 21 Ors Vs Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt limited, 2016 SCC Online NCDRC 1117’. It was submitted that value of the loan facility availed by the Complainant is Rs 4,25,39,198/-, therefore, in view of the ratio laid down by Hon NCDRC in above judgment, complaint is not maintainable before this commission. Complainant had filed frivolous & vexatious complaint, therefore, OP prayed to dismiss complaint with Costs. OP, in written statement, had objected complaint filed by the unregistered partnership firm. OP further objected Complainant as ‘Consumer’ citing that the business carried out by Complainants is for Commercial purpose.
4. It is necessary to decide objection of the OP regarding pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. It is matter of records that Complainants had availed loan of Rs 4,25,39,198/- from OP in May 2017. Complainants had admitted in para 13 of the Complaint that they had paid loan amount of Rs 1,10,55,074 till 05.10.2019. OP had recovered Rs 13,36,574.43/- towards principle & Rs 97,18,499.57/- towards interest i.e. Total Rs 1,10,55,073.46/- by increasing interest on loan amount.
5. It is clear that as per The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 11, this commission had pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain complaint where the value of goods & services and the compensation does not exceed Rs 20,00,000/-. The present complaint was filed under old Act, therefore, provisions related to jurisdiction are required to be considered as per old Act. Moreover, as per New Act, The Consumer Protection Act 2019, Section 34, this commission had pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain complaint where the value of goods & services paid as consideration does not exceed Rs 1,00,00,000/-., now modified as Rs 50,00,000/-
6 The ratio laid down by 3 member bench of Hon NCDRC, in the matter of ‘Ambarish Kumar Shukla & 21 Ors Vs Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt limited, 2016 SCC Online NCDRC 1117’ is as below.
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 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 lacs, 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 lacs, the complaint would have to be filed before this Commission, the value of the services itself being more than Rs.1.00 crore.
In view of the above judgment, it is necessary to consider amount of loan while deciding pecuniary jurisdiction in the present case. It is clear that Complainants had availed loan of Rs 4,25,39,198/- from OP. Moreover, Complainant had paid loan repayment of Rs 1,10,55,074 till 05.10.2019. Complainants submitted that OP had recovered Rs 22,24,408/- excess amount towards interest. All above values are certainly beyond pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission as per Old as well as New Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019.
7. In view of the above discussions, OP’s application for dismissing present Complaint for exceeding pecuniary jurisdiction of this commission deserves to be allowed, hence allowed. Consequently, Complaint is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. However, Commission grants liberty to the Complainants to seek redressal of it’s grievance before the appropriate court/ forum in accordance with the law.
ORDER
1) OP’s Application dtd 20.02.2020 for dismissing present Complaint for want of pecuniary jurisdiction is allowed.
2) Complaint No.RBT/CC/646/2019 is dismissed as not maintainable. Liberty is granted to complainants to seek redressal of its grievance before the appropriate court/ forum in accordance with the law.
3) No order as to costs.
4) Certified copy of this order be supplied to both parties.
