Quorum:     Ms. Rekha Rani, President

                   Sh. Vikram Kumar Dabas, Member

ORDER

Ms. Rekha Rani, President

1.       The Complaint filed by Puneet Mathur under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act is at admission stage.  Arguments addressed by Mr. Arun Sharma advocate for complainant heard. 

2.       Facts pleaded in the complaint and in so far as they are relevant at this stage, are as under:-

Complainant is running food business at Shop No. 1 -2, CSC Market,         Pocket – F,  GTB Enclave, Dilshad Garden, Delhi  had taken loan against property from HTB Bank Delhi Branch, for a sum of Rs. 28,40,000/- (Rs. Twenty Eight Lacs Forty Thousand only) on 29/05/2014 with interest at the rate of 19% per annum.  In April 2015 an employee of OP assured the complainant that he could get loan amount of Rs. 32,00,000/- (Thirty Two Lacs only) sanctioned to the complainant with interest at the rate of 14% per annum without any locking period and without no for-closure penalty.  Acting upon the said assurance brother of the complainant gave a DD No. 500568 dated 01/08/2015 of Rs. 28,000/- (Twenty Eight Thousand only) in favour of OP 1 and said amount was assured to be refunded to the complainant as and when the title deeds of the property in question were deposited with OP 1.  Contrary to the assurance given by employee of OP 1 complainant was shocked when he discovered that only Rs. 26,70,000/- (Rs. Twenty Six Lacs Seventy Thousand only) was sanctioned although loan was applied for Rs. 32,00,000/- (Rs. Thirty Two Lacs only).  Complainant was further shocked to learn that his brother was shown as guarantor of loan against property granted to the complainant to the tune of Rs. 27,61,411/- (Rs. Twenty Seven Lacs Sixty One Thousand, Four Hundred Eleven only).  The OP have forged the signatures on the loan documents showing brother of complainant as guarantor and accordingly he filed a Criminal case against OP and its officers which is pending in the Court of Ms. Shilpi Jain MM Tis Hazari and is fixed for 16/09/2017.  Complainant has prayed for direction to OP to pay him Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rs. Five Lacs only) as damages for causing physical and mental harassment along with 24% per annum interest and litigation expenses of Rs. 22,000/- (Rs. Twenty Two Thousand only). 

3.       It is very clearly pleaded in the complaint itself that value of the subject matter of the consumer dispute is more than Rs. 20,000,00/- (Rs. Twenty Lacs only). Admittedly complainant sought loan of Rs. 32,000,00/- (Thirty Two Lacs only) and he was allegedly sanctioned only Rs. 27,61,411/-  (Rs. Twenty Seven Lacs Sixty One Thousand Four Hundred Eleven only)

4.       Three member bench of National Commission in Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors Vs Ferrous   Infrastructure Pvt Ltd in CC No. 97/2016 vide order dated 07.10.2016  observed that value of goods & services  is to be   seen for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction instead of value of deficiency.

5.       The same question again came up  before National Commission in Rajkishore V/s TDI Infrastructure Ltd III (2017) CPJ 155.  In that case total sale price of the property was above Rs. 20,00,000/- but complainant sought refund of Rs. 8,06,300/- charged in excess by the OP. Complaint was filed before State Commission which was dismissed vide order dated 16.02.2016 on the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction with liberty to file fresh complaint before District Forum.  The complainants went in appeal contending that consumer dispute involved property whose value was above Rs. 20,00,000/-(Rs. Twenty Lacs only) National Commission allowed the appeal and following Ambrish Kumar Shukla (supra) observed that even if there was a small deficiency in the service availed by the complainant the total value of the said service is taken into consideration for the purpose of determining pecuniary jurisdiction.

6.       In another case titled  Daimler Financial Services India Vs Laxmi Naryan Biswal in First Appeal no. 1616 of 2017 decided on 30.08.2017 by Hon’ble National Commission  judgment in  Ambrish Kumar Shukla  (supra)  was again referred and following relevant part  of the said judgment was quoted:  

“Reference order dated 11.8.2016   Issue No. (i)   It is evident from a bare perusal of Sections 21, 17 and 11 of the Consumer Protection Act that it's the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed which determines the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum. The Act does not envisage determination of the pecuniary jurisdiction based upon the cost of removing the deficiencies in the goods purchased or the services to be rendered to the consumer. Therefore, the cost of removing the defects or deficiencies in the goods or the services would have no bearing on the determination of the pecuniary jurisdiction. If the aggregate of the value of the goods purchased or the services hired or availed of by a consumer, when added to the compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint by him, exceeds Rs.1.00 Crore, it is this Commission alone which would have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. For instance if a person purchases a machine for more than Rs.1.00 Crore, a manufacturing defect is found in the machine and the cost of removing the said defect is Rs.10.00 lakh, it is the aggregate of the sale consideration paid by the consumer for the machine and compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint which would determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum. Similarly, if for instance, a house is sold for more than Rs.1.00 Crore, certain defects are found in the house, and the cost of removing those defects is Rs.5.00 lakh, the complaint would have to be filed before this Commission, the value of the services itself being more than Rs.1.00 Crore.”

7. The facts of the case in Daimler Financial Services India (supra) were that the complainant had purchased two Hywa Trucks with the financial help of Daimler Financial Services India by taking loan of Rs. 23,55,945/- for each vehicle. Out of the total loan of Rs. 23,86,995/- for each vehicle , the complainant  had already paid the entire loan amount and had agreed to pay the full and  final settlement on 05.04.2016 by making payment of Rs. 14,70,000/- and had received the possession of the vehicle on the same day with further condition that the complainant should withdraw the writ petition bearing no. WP (C ) 2307 of 2016 from the High Court of Odisha.  Prior to liquidation of loan / expiry of the agreement the Daimler Financial Services India had seized the vehicle for which the complainant had approached the High Court of Odisha by way of filing a Writ Petition.  The High Court had issued notice and the Daimler Financial Services India after receiving the notice had called the complainant for a settlement. As per the said settlement the complainant had already paid a sum of Rs. 14,70,000/- towards full and final settlement outstanding in respect of both the vehicles.   Though the complainant in pursuance to the aforesaid settlement had paid the entire amount towards liquidation of loan and had withdrawn the Writ Petition before the High  Court of Odisha, the Daimler Financial Services India   taking advantage of the situation had not issued NOC to the complainant.  The complainant hence filed a Consumer Complaint before the Odisha State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack for not granting NOC which was termed illegal deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and  for directing Daimler Financial Services India to issue NOC in respect of the two vehicles.  The State Commission admitted the consumer complaint which was challenged before the Hon’ble National Commission. The  Hon’ble National Commission observed that :

“ Counsel for the appellant has admitted that the respondent/ complainant had taken loan of Rs. 47.74 Lakh,  the cost of service and compensation asked for is Rs. 95,000/-.  Hence the aggregate value of the cost of service hired or availed of and the compensation claimed by the complainant certainly falls within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission”.

8.  In view of the aforesaid this Forum lacks pecuniary jurisdiction to take cognizance of the consumer dispute involving sanction of home loan of                Rs. 27,61,411/- against applied loan of Rs. 32,00,000/- ( Rs. Thirty Two Lacs).  The complaint is dismissed with liberty to the complainant to file the same before the appropriate Forum.   Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per law.  File be consigned to record room. 

Announced on this           day of ___________, 2017.