Punjab

Jalandhar

CC/13/2019

Dr. Mukesh Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Bajaj Finance - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Naveen Chhabra

16 Jan 2019

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
Ladowali Road, District Administrative Complex,
2nd Floor, Room No - 217
JALANDHAR
(PUNJAB)
 
Complaint Case No. CC/13/2019
( Date of Filing : 08 Jan 2019 )
 
1. Dr. Mukesh Gupta
S/o Sh. Dwarka Dass Hno. 231- Ashok Nagar
Jalandhar
Punjab
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. M/s Bajaj Finance
Block 'C', Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar, Through its Branch Manager.
Amritsar
Punjab
2. Lakhan Bhatia
Assistant Manager, M/s Bajaj Finance, R/o SCO 4 & 5, Above Andhra Bank, Rai Shaib Colony, Opp. Punjab Roadways Workshop, Jalandhar Road, Batala.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
  Karnail Singh PRESIDENT
  Jyotsna Thatai MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
Sh. Naveen Chhabra, Adv Counsel for the Complainant.
 
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 16 Jan 2019
Final Order / Judgement

 

Present: Sh. Naveen Chhabra, Adv Counsel for the Complainant.

 

1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that the complainant is a doctor by profession and having well reputation in the society. OP No.2 i.e. Lakhan Bhatia, calling himself an Assistant Manager of the OP No.1 visited the complainant in the month of November, 2017 and allured the complainant to avail a loan facility from the OP No.1 on the very good terms and conditions and that too without any collateral security. The various terms and conditions described by the OP are mentioned in the complaint.

2. That ultimately the OP No.2 provided a loan to the complainant of Rs.25,00,000/- and signed the documents in blank as per assurance given by the OP No.2 stating that the documents will be filled up afterwards in the office at Amritsar i.e. office OP No.1. In the month of July 2018, the complainant taken out a print of statement of loan account and surprised to see that the loan amount at the disposal for availment is Rs.23,55,320/-, whereas Rs.1,64,680/- has been deducted as various charges by the OPs and deducting Rs.768/- regularly from the bank account of the complainant, which is maintained with the State Bank of India, Jalandhar. The complainant after going through the bank's statement contacted the OP No.2 and enquired all about these, then the OP informed that all the amount debited will be reversed and the amount of loan of Rs.25,00,000/- will release only when it is required by you as discussed by the complainant at the time of signing the documents, but even on request of the complainant, the OP not reversed the entry rather the amount of Rs.668/- continuously debited to the saving fund account maintained by the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant served a legal notice to OPs No.1 and 2, but all in vain and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to reverse the entries of Rs.1,64,680/-, which is illegally debited and amount of Rs.6680/- i.e. the amount of Rs.668/- deducted from the saving account illegally and unlawfully from the account and further be directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant on the point of admission of this complaint.

4. After hearing the counsel for the complainant as well as from scanning of the file, it reveals that the complainant has availed the services of loan from the OP No.1, to the tune of Rs.25,00,000/- and from this service of loan facility, we have to consider the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum and accordingly find that the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum is only upto 20,00,000/-, though the complainant alleged in the Prayer Clause for reversing of entry of Rs.1,64,680/-, but in order to ascertain the pecuniary jurisdiction, the total price amount and total amount of the services availed is to be taken into consideration along with compensation as well as interest and these views have been followed from the judgment of Hon'ble National Commission, cited in 2017 CPJ 1 (NC), titled as “Ambrish Kumar Shukla and Others Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., wherein his Lordship held as under:-

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986- Section 12(1) (c)- Pecuniary Jurisdiction, Interest has to be taken into account for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction.

Consumer Protection Act, 1986- Section 12(1) (c)- Pecuniary Jurisdiction, Determination, Consideration paid or agreed to be paid by consumer at the time of purchasing the goods or hiring or availing of the services, as the case may be, is to be considered, along with the compensation, if any, claimed in complaint, to determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of Consumer Forum .” 5. In view of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission, we find that the instant complaint does not fall within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum, therefore ordered that the complaint be returned to the complainant with a direction to file a complaint before the appropriate Forum/Court. Copy of the order be sent to the complainant free of costs under the rules. File be consigned to the Record Room.

Dated Jyotsna Thatai Karnail Singh

16.01.2019 Member President

 
 
[ Karnail Singh]
PRESIDENT
 
[ Jyotsna Thatai]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.