Order No. 4 date: 12-03-2018

Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

Record is put up today for passing order in respect of IA/205/2018, whereof the OPs have challenged the maintainability of this complaint case.

By such petition, it is stated by the Petitioner/OPs that the complaint petition revolves over alleged charging of interest to the tune of Rs. 4,67,040/- by the Petitioner/OPs which is much below the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. Accordingly, the instant petition is not maintainable for want of pecuniary jurisdiction.

At the time of hearing, both sides articulated their respective views through their Ld. Advocates.  We have also perused the documents on record.

Sec. 17(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 stipulates that subject to the other provisions of this Act, the State Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds rupees twenty lakhs but does not exceed rupees one crore.

On a plain reading of the aforesaid stipulation, it appears to us that for the purpose of determination of pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission, we have to take into consideration the sum total of two components, viz., value of goods/services and compensation claimed.

Insofar as the Complainant availed of loan worth Rs. 34,09,578/- from the OPs, in our considered view, we cannot set aside the value of aforesaid loan amount while determining the total case value.  It is immaterial in this case, whether the loan account has been closed or not.  Insofar as the epicenter of whole dispute is the aforesaid sanctioned loan amount, the same cannot be completely overlooked while determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission to adjudicate the case.

We are of considered opinion that the complaint case has rightly been filed before us by the Complainant.  Accordingly, the instant petition stands rejected/dismissed.

Fix 15-03-2018 for filing WV as a last chance.