Per Justice Sham Sunder , President This appeal is directed against the order dated 22.6.2011, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum only), vide which it dismissed the complaint of the complainant (now appellant), on the ground, that it had no territorial jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the same. 2. The complainant applied for housing loan, to OP No.2 Life Insurance Corporation Housing Finance Limited, vide application No.605206. The loan was sanctioned vide account No. 1500-4984. OP No.1 i.e. Life Insurance Corporation Housing Finance Limited, Regional Office, Chandigarh, sanctioned the loan in the sum of Rs.12 lacs on 12.8.2004 with interest@ 7.5.% per annum, in favour of the complainant. The loan was to be repaid in instalments of Rs.11124/- per month. It was stated that the first instalment of loan to the tune of Rs.11 lacs was disbursed on 31.8.2004 vide cheque No.000545. The second instalment of Rs.75,000/- was disbursed on 23.9.2004. The remaining amount of Rs.25,000/- was disbursed to the complainant thereafter. It was further stated that the complainant was paying monthly instalments regularly, without any default. In between, the OPs, increased the rate of interest, without any consent of the complainant. They also increased the period of payment at once, without any consent of the complainant. When the OPs were approached, by the complainant, to pay the outstanding loan amount, as it was not possible for him to pay very high Equated Monthly Instalments, they issued demand letter dated 7.11.2008 in the sum of Rs.11,37,519.22, as principal amount. The amount of Rs.11,50,000/- was deposited vide receipt Nos. 1172462 to 1172467 dated 7.11.2008. It was further stated that after payment of the aforesaid amount, the OPs demanded Rs.24,350/- vide annexure C5, without assigning any reason, out of which, a sum of Rs. 22,750/- was termed as levy charges. It was further stated that the said amount was deposited by the complainant under protest on 25.11.2008, vide annexure C6 . It was further stated that the letter dated 16.2.2008 was written to the OPs, for the refund of levy charges, as there was no agreement, between the parties, to obtain the same, from the complainant. It was further stated that the OPs, however, failed to refund the levy charges. It was further stated that the OPs, thus, were deficient, in rendering service, and indulged into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(hereinafter to be called as the Act only) was filed by him. 3. In their reply, the OPs, took up the preliminary objection, that the District Forum, at Chandigarh, had no territorial jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint. It was stated that the complainant himself agreed that interest and foreclosure charges shall be charged, in terms of the agreement, the policy of LICHFL, market practice and as per guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India. It was further stated that a demand of Rs.11,74,428.72 was made, on account of the loan amount, from the complainant. It was further stated that levy charges/foreclosure charges charged by the OPs, were in consonance with the guidelines, issued by the Regulatory Authorities. It was further stated that there was no deficiency, in service, on the part of the OPs, nor did they indulge into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong. 4. The parties led evidence, in support of their case. 5. After hearing the complainant, the Counsel for the OPs, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum came to the conclusion, that it had no territorial jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint. Accordingly, the complaint was dismissed. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, was filed by the appellant/complainant. 7. We have heard the appellant, in person, Counsel for the respondents, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 8. The appellant, who appeared in person, submitted that the District Forum, at Chandigarh, had territorial jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint, as the loan was sanctioned by the Regional Office of Life Insurance Corporation Housing Finance Limited, at Chandigarh, and the first instalment of loan, was also disbursed vide cheque No.000545 in the sum of Rs.11 lacs at Chandgiarh. He further submitted that even levy charges demanded by the OPs, were deposited at Chandigarh. He further submitted that since, a part of cause of action, arose to the complainant, at Chandigarh, the District Forum fell into a grave error, in dismissing the complaint, for lack of territorial jurisdiction. 9. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondents, submitted that the complainant applied for loan to respondent No.2, vide application No.605206 at Karnal. He further submitted that the District Forum was right in holding, that it could not decide the complaint, for lack of territorial jurisdiction. 10. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the appellant, the Counsel for the respondents, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be accepted, for the reasons, to be recorded hereinafter. OP No.1, being the Regional Office of Life Insurance Corporation Housing Finance Limited, is located at Chandigarh. C1 is a copy of the letter, issued by the Life Insurance Corporation Housing Finance Limited, Regional Office, Sector-22, Chandigarh, OP No.1, to the complainant, whereby, he was informed that it had, in principle, approved loan, as per the terms and conditions contained therein. C2 is a copy of the letter issued by the Life Insurance Corporation Housing Finance Limited, Sector-22C, Chandigarh, to the complainant, whereby, he was informed that further to his acceptance of its loan offer, dated 26.8.2004, it was disbursing the first instalment of loan. It was further informed, vide this letter, that it was enclosing cheque No.000545 in the sum of Rs.11 lacs, in favour of the complainant. In this letter, the rate of interest, on which, the loan was disbursed and repayment schedule, were also mentioned. C3 is a copy of another letter, which was sent to Neeraj Gupta, Complainant, by the Life Insurance Corporation Housing Finance Limited ,Sector-22, Chandigarh, OP NO.1 depicting the quotation for payment. C4, is the document containing the receipts showing the payment of loan amount, by the complainant to Life Insurance Corporation Housing Finance Limited , Regional Office,Sector-22, Chandigarh. C5 is a copy of the statement of account, showing that levy charges, which were imposed upon the complainant, had also been deposited at Chandigarh. Under these circumstances, a part of cause of action, as per Section 11(2) ( c)of the Act, arose to the complainant, to file the complaint, at Chandigarh. It appears that the District Forum was swayed by the fact, that since the complainant applied for housing loan to OP No.2 at Karnal, vide an application, though it was sanctioned by OP No.1, at Chandigarh, yet it had no territorial jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint. The District Forum did not take into consideration the aforesaid documents, for coming to the conclusion, that since a part of cause of action, arose to the complainant, at Chandigarh, he could file the complaint under Section 12 of the Act, at Chandigarh. The findings of the District Forum, to the effect that it lacked territorial jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint, being illegal, are liable to be set aside. 11. The Counsel for the respondents, however, placed reliance on Sonic Surgical Vs National Insurnace Company Ltd. 2010(1) Consumer Law Today 252, in support of his contention, that the District Forum, at Chandigarh had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. The facts of Sonic Surgical’s case (supra), are clearly distinguishable, from the facts of the instant case. In that case, the policy was issued at Ambala, the fire took place, in the premises of the complainant , at Ambala, and the premium was also paid at Ambala. It was, under these circumstances, that the Apex Court held that the mere fact that the Branch Office of the OP was located at Chandigarh, though, no part of cause of action, arose to the complainant therein, the State Commission, at Chandigarh, had no territorial jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint. No help, therefore, can be drawn, by the Counsel for the respondents, from the principle of law, laid down in Sonic Surgical’s case (supra)., The submission of the Counsel for the respondents, therefore, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 12. The order of the District Forum, being illegal,and perverse, is liable to be set aside. 13. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is accepted, with no order as to costs. The impugned order of the District Forum, is set aside. The District Forum is directed to decide the complaint, on merits, on the basis of evidence already led, and after hearing the Counsel for the parties. 14. The parties are directed to appear before the District Forum, on 29.11.2011 at 10.30 A.M. 15. The record of the District Forum , alongwith certified copy of the order passed by this Commission, shall be sent to it , immediately. 16. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. 17. The file be consigned to the Record Room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT | , | |
