This consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant Bharat Kalra against the opposite party M/s. India Infoline Housing Finance Ltd.

2.      Heard the learned counsel for the complainant at the admission stage. It has been alleged that the opposite party charged Rs.23,15,462/- as prepayment charges for foreclosing  the loan account.  It has also been stated by the learned counsel for the complainant that the complaint being No.C-1242/18 was earlier filed before the State Commission.  The State Commission vide its order dated 04.10.2018 returned the complaint by observing that the State Commission did not have the required pecuniary jurisdiction as the loan amount was Rs.4.25 crores and the total consideration was to be considered for deciding the pecuniary jurisdiction. Hence the present complaint has been filed before this Commission. 

3.      Stating the above facts, the learned counsel argued that this Commission has the required pecuniary jurisdiction as the total loan amount taken by the complainant was Rs.4.25 crores though the bank has charged Rs.23,15,462/ as prepayment charges for foreclosing the loan.

4.      I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant and have examined the material on record.  This Commission in Consumer Complaint No.1593 of 2018, Vinay Bajaj Vs. HDFC Ltd, decided on 08.08.2018 has dealt with this issue and has observed the following:-

“4.       I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant and have examined the material on record.

5.       I have gone through the order dated 01.06.2018 of the District Forum wherein the complaint has been dismissed on account of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction.  From the perusal of the order dated 01.06.2018 of the District Forum, it is seen that the District Forum has considered the total consideration amount of the loan as the consideration for the services offered by the opposite party bank in respect of the relief claimed.  In the present case, the total loan amount has been repaid by the complainant and service in respect of the loan was complete.  Bank has charged additionally pre-payment charges of ₹4,03,434/- for closing the loan account and that is the subject matter of the present complaint and refund of this amount is the relief claimed in the complaint.  Clearly this is the service which relates to charging of the pre-payment charges by the bank, therefore, value of service is only ₹4,03,434/- and the value of the total loan amount is not to be considered as the consideration amount for this service.  Clearly in the present case, the total consideration of the service is only ₹4,03,434/-, therefore, it was well within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum to decide the present complaint.  It is clear that the District Forum has not correctly appreciated the judgment of the Larger Bench of this Commission in Ambrish Shukla and Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra) as value of service is to be seen only in respect of the relief sought.  Prayer made is clearly in respect of pre-payment charges, therefore, only the consideration of service of foreclosure of the loan is to be considered in the present case. The consideration for this service is only ₹4,03,434/-, which definitely falls within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum.

5.      In the above referred case also total amount of loan was Rs.1,77,00,000/-, however the prepayment charges were Rs.4,03,434/- only, therefore, the above judgment is fully applicable in the present case and accordingly this Commission does not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to decide the present complaint and in view of the fact that the complaint has been filed seeking refund of only the prepayment charges of Rs.23,15,462/- only, the State Commission has pecuniary jurisdiction to decide this complaint.