Punjab

Patiala

CC/17/176

Rattan Lal Bharadwaj - Complainant(s)

Versus

Megna Finance - Opp.Party(s)

Amit Jain

20 Sep 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

 

                                      Consumer Complaint No.176 of 16.5.2017

                                      Decided on:    20.9.2018

 

Rattan Lal Bhardwaj aged 62 years son of Sh.Amar Nath, resident of B-25/353/1 Ram Dass Street, Sheranwala Gate, Patiala, Punjab

 

 

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

 

1.       Magma Fincorp Limited, Regd. office 24, Park Street, Kolkata, West Bengal, through its Director.

2.       Magma Fincorp Limited, Branch Office at 2^nd Floor, Car Life Building, Oppsite Head Post Office, Patiala-147001, Punjab.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

 

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

 

QUORUM

                                      Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member

                                      Sh.Kanwaljeet Singh, Member                  

                  

                                                                            

ARGUED BY:

                                      Sh.Amit Jain,Advocate, counsel for complainant.

                                      Sh.Vikas Mittal,Advocate, counsel for OPs.

 

 

 

                                     

 ORDER

                                    SH. KANWALJEET SINGH,  MEMBER

1. Brief facts of the complaint are that complainant alongwith  his brother is the owner of the property i.e. B-25/353/1 Ram Dass Street, Sheranwala Gate, Patiala alongwith shop situated at Main Sheranwala Gate, Patiala and complainant took loan of Rs.57lakh from ICICI Bank Ltd..Officials of GE Money approached the complainant and had been pressing to avail loan from their institute as they are charging less interest of 1.5% than market rate and they further assured the complainant will be getting huge benefits. They will themselves take  over the loan from ICICI Bank and also collect original title documents from ICICI Bank and complainant believed the version of said officials and agreed for the same.

          OPs sanctioned the home loan of Rs.61,70,000/- and it started from 7.6.2006 vide account No. HFPC 00000070 and since the complainant is paying the installments regularly. Complainant demanded the statement of account regarding what rate of interest is being charged by OPs but OPs never supplied the same.GE money neither informing nor any consent was received from complainant .Loan sanctioned and granted by GE money was taken over by OPs. Whereas there is no agreement by complainant with OPs but still complainant had been depositing the monthly installments. Complainant apprehended that  GE Money and OPs has charged high rate of interest then complainant served a legal notice dated 8.3.2017 to the OPs through his counsel by registered AD Post.

          OPs have extended the tenure from 2021 to 2025 and OPs shall be getting excess amount of Rs.30lakh approximately. Complainant had availed the loan of Rs.61,70,000/- and has repaid a sum of Rs.85lakh approximately in the last 11 years and the loan is to be closed in the year 2021. Complainant is being harassed by the OPs and they failed to provide proper services to their customers rather the services provided by OPs are deficient, negligent which amounts to unfair trade practices.

          Complainant prayed that OPs be directed to recalculate the repayment schedule as agreed between the parties and to refund the amount which had been charged  extra alongwith interest and compensation amounting to Rs.1,00,000/-on account of mental tension, harassment and inconvenience suffered  by the complainant due to the deficient services of the OPs.

2. Upon notice OPs appeared through their counsel and filed their written version taking preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable. There is no unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of OPs; complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non joining of necessary parties; complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction that loan amount was Rs.61,70,000/-which exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. Last change in the rate of interest was done in January,2011 whereas complainant has approached before the Forum in June 2017 after a lapse of more than six years.
3. On merits, the OPs reiterated the stand as taken in the preliminary objections. Complainant himself opted for the loan from the institution  by signing the written loan agreement and understanding the terms of the loan agreement. There is no point that it was mentioned that the rate of interest will remain less @1.5% than market rate. It is correct that the home loan of Rs.61,70,000/- was sanctioned to the complainant and it started from 7.6.2006. Deed of assignment entered into between GE Money and Magma Fincorp Ltd.Assests and liabilities  of GE Money were taken over by Magma Fincorp Ltd was brought to the notice of the complainant by issuing the proper notices and complainant receiving and acknowledging the same ,started making the payment to the OPs. Statement of account is always available and copy of the same can be taken by the complainant to pay the requisite charges. In loan agreement clause 2.1, executed between the parties that if there is any change in the rate of interest then the outstanding amount and/or the period of EMIs will be recomputed for the balance period in accordance with the company norms. Period of loan has been extended due to the change in the rate of interest. In clause 2.2. company shall have to modify any terms and conditions of the agreement at any time in its discretion. Last rate change was done by GE Money in January 2011 and new rate of interest was 11.66% per annum. OPs prayed that the complaint of the complainant may kindly be dismissed with cost.
4. In order to prove the case, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered  into evidence Ex.CA, affidavit alongwith documents Exs.C1 to  C11 and closed the evidence.
5. The ld. counsel for the OP tendered into evidence Ex.OPA/1 affidavit of Sh.Sanjeev Rajput authorized representative of the OP alongwith documents Ex.OPA to OPE and closed the evidence.
6. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the case file very carefully.
7. During arguments, the contention of both the counsels are similer to their respective pleadings. So no need to reiterate the same. Further, first objection of the OP is regarding the pecuniary jurisdiction mentioned in preliminary objection at Para no.6. As per Exs.OPA and OPB the legal objection taken  by the OPs counsel in para 4 of the preliminary objection that the signatory of the loan agreement is six person. Complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non joining of necessary parties. Para No.7 of preliminary objection the last change in the rate of interest was January,2011, whereas complaint has filed in June,2017 after a lapse of more than six years.So hit by Limitation under Consumer Protection Act. As per Ex.OPD, no address mentioned  on receipt of courier regarding notice to complainant for increase of rate of interest is neither mentioned by complainant in his pleadings nor in his evidence to produce the same. Legal notice issued on 8.7.2017 after 11 years of the loan agreement execution, Ex.OPB dated 13.4.2006.
8. Now coming to the main controversy that whether District Forum having pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint in hand or not?

          In the light of Section 11(1) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986, the relevant portion is reproduced as under:

11.Jurisdiction of the District Forum-(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed [does not exceed rupees twenty laks]

As per para no.2 of the complaint and para no.2 of the written statement both the parties admitted that home loan of  Rs.61,70,000/-was sanctioned.

           In the case of Ambrish Kumar Shukla & 21 Ors. Versus Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 1(2017) CPJ 1(NC),  the Hon’ble National Commission has held 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. Even our  Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab, has  relied upon the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble National Commission , while determining the pecuniary jurisdiction , in the case titled as Ansal Woodury Apartments Residents Welfare Associations Vs. Ansal Housing and Construction Limited and another, in first appeal No.931 of 2016, decided on 16.5.2017.

9. Resultantly for the above reason, the complaint is not maintainable due to pecuniary jurisdiction and is dismissed accordingly. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate authority having pecuniary jurisdiction. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:20.9.2018                

                                                                  

                                           KANWALJEET SINGH  NEELAM GUPTA

                                                MEMBER                         MEMBER