DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL)
ISBT KASHMERE GATE DELHI
CC/ 545/2008
No. DF/ Central/
- Sh. Yoginder Kumar Goel
- Mrs. Sunila Goel
Both residents of
S – 196, Greater Kailash – I,
New Delhi – 110 048.
VERSUS
ING Vysya Bank
Having its Branch Office at
Retail Assets Division,
East Park Road, Karol Bagh,
New Delhi – 110 005.
…..OPPOSITE PARTY
Quorum: Ms. Rekha Rani, President
Mrs. Manju Bala Sharma, Member
ORDER
Rekha Rani, President
1. Sh. Yoginder Kumar Goel and Mrs. Sunita Goel (in short the complainants) filed the instant complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 as amended up to date (in short the Act) pleading therein the following facts :
They approached ING Vysya Bank (in short the OP) for obtaining home loan of Rs. Sixty Lacs for purchasing property bearing no. S. -196, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi – 110 048. The said loan was sanctioned by OP vide their
letter dated 13/07/2005 at floating rate of interest at the rate of 8% for 180
months in the EMI against the said loan worked out to Rs. 57,340/- commencing from 31/08/2005 and ending on 31/07/2020. Interest was to be charged on reducing balance. OP also issued free life insurance to the extent of full term to the entire loan amount to the complainants. It also provided free property insurance to the complainants. As per the terms of the loan sanctioned by the OP, complainants submitted 24 post dated cheques to the OP at the time of commencement of the loan and thereafter on expiry of 24 months further 24 post dated cheques until the entire loan was repaid. OP was irregular in providing statement of account to the complainant. OP has been in possession of post dated cheques and therefore there was no question of late payment being made by the complainants to the OP. As per terms of sanction of loan interest was payable at 8% p.a. whereas OP has been charging rate of interest at the rate of 12.45% p.a. OP has been crediting the EMI’s to the account of the complainants after 2 to 7 days of the due date despite the fact that OP has always been in possession of the post dated cheques. This practice has also resulted in the OP debiting the complainants with late payment charges and penal interest. Complainants accordingly were compelled to close the loan account for which OP charged foreclosure charges at high rate of interest instead of 1% as indicated in its letter dated 13/07/2005. Complainants sent legal notice dated 16/06/2008 to the OP. Complainants have claimed Rs. 2,24,821.69 being an amount of excess interest charged by the OP and
Rs. 20 lacs as compensation towards deficiency in service and cost of litigation.
2. On receipt of notice OP appeared and contested the case. Both the parties adduced evidence by way of affidavit. They have also filed written arguments. We have heard learned counsel for complainant. None appeared for OP to address arguments.
3. Admittedly home loan of Rs. 60 Lacs was applied for purchase of property. Admittedly complainants have already paid more than Rs. 20 lacs to the OP. As such this Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter.
4. As per Section 11 (i) of the Act the District Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction to adjudicate claims where the value of goods and services and the compensation claimed does not exceed Rs. 20 Lacs.
5. Three member bench of National Commission in Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors Vs Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt Ltd in CC No. 97/2016 vide order dated 07.10.2016 observed that value of goods & services and value of the relief claimed is to be seen for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction instead of value of alleged deficiency.
6. The same question again came up before National Commission in Rajkishore V/s TDI Infrastructure Ltd III (2017) CPJ 155. In that case total sale price of the property was above Rs. 20,00,000/- but complainant sought refund of Rs. 8,06,300/- charged in excess by the OP. Complaint was filed before State
Commission which was dismissed vide order dated 16.02.2016 on the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction with liberty to file fresh complaint before District Forum.
The complainants went in appeal contending that consumer dispute involved property whose value was above Rs. 20,00,000/-(Rs. Twenty Lacs only) National Commission allowed the appeal and following Ambrish Kumar Shukla (supra) observed that even if there was a small deficiency in the service availed by the complainant the total value of the said service is taken into consideration for the purpose of determining pecuniary jurisdiction.
7. In another case titled Daimler Financial Services India Vs Laxmi Naryan Biswal in First Appeal no. 1616 of 2017 decided on 30.08.2017 by Hon’ble National Commission judgment in Ambrish Kumar Shukla (supra) was again referred and following relevant part of the said judgment was quoted:
“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 lakh, 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 lakh, the complaint would have to be filed before this
Commission, the value of the services itself being more than Rs.1.00 Crore.”
8. The facts of the case in Daimler Financial Services India (supra) were that the complainant had purchased two Hywa Trucks with the financial help of Daimler Financial Services India by taking loan of Rs. 23,55,945/- for each vehicle. Out of the total loan of Rs. 23,86,995/- for each vehicle , the complainant had already paid the entire loan amount and had agreed to pay the full and final settlement on 05.04.2016 by making payment of Rs. 14,70,000/- and had received the possession of the vehicle on the same day with further condition that the complainant should withdraw the writ petition bearing no. WP (C ) 2307 of 2016 from the High Court of Odisha. Prior to liquidation of loan / expiry of the agreement the Daimler Financial Services India had seized the vehicle for which the complainant had approached the High Court of Odisha by way of filing a Writ Petition. The High Court had issued notice and the Daimler Financial Services India after receiving the notice had called the complainant for a settlement. As per the said settlement the complainant had already paid a sum of Rs. 14,70,000/- towards full and final settlement outstanding in respect of both the vehicles. Though the complainant in pursuance to the aforesaid settlement had paid the entire amount towards liquidation of loan and had withdrawn the Writ Petition before the High Court of Odisha, the Daimler Financial Services India taking advantage of the situation had not issued NOC to the complainant. The complainant hence filed
a Consumer Complaint before the Odisha State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack for not granting NOC which was termed illegal deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and for directing Daimler Financial Services India to issue NOC in respect of the two vehicles. The State Commission admitted the consumer complaint which was challenged before the Hon’ble National Commission. The Hon’ble National Commission observed that :
“ Counsel for the appellant has admitted that the respondent/ complainant had taken loan of Rs. 47.74 Lakh, the cost of service and compensation asked for is Rs. 95,000/-. Hence the aggregate value of the cost of service hired or availed of and the compensation claimed by the complainant certainly falls within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission”.
9. Since this forum lacks pecuniary jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim, the instant complaint be accordingly returned to the complainants to be presented before the appropriate forum having jurisdiction. Copy of the same be retained on record. Copy of this order be sent to the parties as statutorily required. File be consigned to record room.
Announced on this 04th Day of July 2018.
