Delhi

New Delhi

CC/33/2021

Joldin Francis - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Fullerton India Credit Company - Opp.Party(s)

22 Feb 2021

ORDER

 

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002

 

Case No.CC. 33/2021                                                                            Dated:

In the matter of:

1.     Joldin Frncis

S/o Francis M.L.

R/o C-1/9,  first floor,

Flat no. 202, Mohan Garden,

Uttam Nagar, Delhi-110059.

 

2.     Praisy K.S.

W/o Joldin Francis

R/o C-1/9, First Floor,

Flat no. 202, Mohan Garden,

Uttam Nagar, Delhi-110059                                            ……..COMPLAINANT

Versus

 

  Fullerton India Credit Company Ltd.       

  Office at:- B-45/47 Third Floor,

  Connaught Place Near PVR Plaza and

  Rajiv Chowk Metro Station (Gate no. 2),

  Delhi- 110001                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   ……..OPPOSITE PARTY

 

ARUN KUMAR ARYA, PRESIDENT

ORDER

  The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, alleging deficiency in service by OP.

It is alleged that the complainant had borrowed a home loan of Rs. 35,00,000/- from  FICCI Branch office of the OP. The loan agreement was in the name of Complainant no. 2 whereas the complainant no. 1 was the Co-borrower. Out of the above said amount of Rs. 35,00,000/- a DD of Rs. 28,00,000/- was issued in the name of the flat owner Sh. Hukum Chand Kansal, whereas the remaining Rs. 07,00,000/- was financed for interior designing and decoration of the Flat.

It is further stated that the registry documents were signed by Sh. Hukum Chand Kansal as the seller and complainant no. 2 as the buyer. Finally in the month of July 2019, when the complainants went to the flat for the purpose of its cleaning it was found by then that the State Bank of India, Stressed Asserts Recovery Branch, 18/4, Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi has sealed the said property and had pasted a public notice informing that in light of inability of a borrower to pay back the loan amount borrowed against the property, the said  property located at H. No. 42, Sec-12, Pratap Vihar, Ghaziabad, had been sealed as per SERFAESI Act.

The complainant who was under the impression that the verification conducted by the respondent after charging the verification fee from the complainants was fool proof, was suddenly left cheated for a sum of Rs. 35,00,000/- and was also rendered homeless due to the deficiency of the service and unfair trade practices on the part of the Respondent, hence this complaint.

We have considered the material placed before us and the submissions of the complainant with relevant provisions of law.

In view of judgment of Kerala High Court in the case of Punjab National Bank Vs. The Consumer Dispute Redressal having case no. WP (C). No.  5957 of 2011(T) is held as under:-

 “Under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, jurisdiction of the civil courts for entertaining any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which a Debts Recovery Tribunal or the Appellate W.P.(C)No.5957 of 2011 Tribunal is empowered by the said Act to determine is barred and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under the said Act.

 Under Section 35 of the SARFAESI Act, the provisions of the said Act is to have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law.”

In addition to it, it is the case of cheating which needs an elaborate evidence and cross-examination of the witness to elucidate the truth which cannot be done in the summary procedure under the Consumer Protection Act.

In case titled Punjab Lloyd Ltd. Vs Corporate Risks India Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 2 SCC 301, it was held that the complicated question of law should be decided by the regular court. It further held that the decisive test in not the complicated nature of question of fact and law arising for decision. In another case titled LIC & Ors. Vs Surinder Kaur & Ors. Civil Appeal No.5334 or 2006 (Arising or of SLP (c) No.17866 of 2005) decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 01.12.2006, it has been held that complex question of facts cannot be decided by the consumer forum under the Consumer Protection Act and such arises can be subject matter of regular Civil Court.

We are, therefore, inclined to hold that the present complainant cannot be adjudicated by this Commission.

Let the complaint be returned to the complainant along with documents for presenting before the concerned District Commission in accordance with Law.

Copy   of   the order may  be  forwarded  to  the  complainant  to   the    case    free  of     cost      as   statutorily    required. 

The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

Announced in open Forum on 22/02/2021.

 

 

(ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

PRESIDENT

 

 

(R.C. MEENA)

MEMBER