Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/1150/2019

M/s Prime Trans Express(P) Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab National bank - Opp.Party(s)

Adv. Jasdev Singh Thind

13 Dec 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	1150 of 2019
Date  of  Institution	:	29.11.2019
Date   of   Decision	:	13.12.2019

 

 

 

 

M/s Prime Trans Express [P] Ltd., Plot No.5-A, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Panchkula 134113, through its authorised signatory Sh.Dineshbhai Prajapati.  

             …..Complainant

Versus

1]  Punjab National Bank, SCO 44-45, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh, through its Chief Manager.

2]  The Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank, SCO 44-45, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh.

     ….. Opposite Parties 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN             PRESIDENT

         SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

                           

 

Argued by :- Sh.Jasdev Singh Thind, Adv. for complainant.

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

         Briefly stated, the complainant company availed CC (HYP-Book Debts) from Opposite Parties to the extent of Rs.1.25 Crores (Rs.125 lacs) with a rate of interest of BR+2.50-0.50% and the necessary documentation was done as per terms and conditions of Bank (Ann.C-1).  However, after some time, it came to the notice of complainant company that the interest is being charged on higher side by the OPs against the agreed rate and as such made several communications as well as requests to correct it and refund the excessively charged interest amount to the tune of Rs.5,66,733/- for the period from 1.4.2016 to 31.1.2018.  However, the OPs did not done the reconciliation of interest debited on their Cash Credit Account NO.1488008700001564 of Prime Trans Express Pvt. Ltd. Hence, this consumer complaint has been filed alleging the said act & conduct of the Opposite Parties as deficiency in service.

 

2]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the complainant on the point of admission of this complaint and perused the record.

 

3]      After hearing the Counsel for the complainant and going through the documentary evidence on record, we are of the considered view that the complaint is not maintainable before this Forum for want of pecuniary jurisdiction in view of the principle of law laid down in the judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission passed in the case titled as  Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.-CC No.97 of 2016, decided on 7.10.2016  [I(2017) CPJ 1 NC]. In para No. 15 of the judgment while dealing with reference dated 11.8.2016, the Hon'ble National Commission has held as under:-

“Issue No.(i)

    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.

Issue No.(ii)

Xxxxxx

Issue No.(iii)

xxxxxx

Issue No. (iv)

In a complaint instituted under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, the pecuniary jurisdiction is to be determined on the basis of aggregate of the value of the goods purchased or the services hired or availed by all the consumers on whose behalf or for whose benefit the complaint is instituted and the total compensation claimed in respect of such consumers.”

 

4]       From the afore extracted para,  it is evident 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. The Hon’ble National Commission has further held that while determining pecuniary jurisdiction by the consumer Fora they are required to take into consideration the aggregate value of the goods purchased or services hired or availed by consumer plus compensation.  

         Furthermore, the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in its latest judgment passed in Consumer Case No.3775 of 2017 – Rajnish Bhardwaj Vs. M/s. Chandigarh Developers Ltd. and other two connected matter, decided on 26.11.2019, while placing reliance on Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra), rejected one of the objection of Opposite Party with regard to pecuniary jurisdiction. 

 

5]       In the instant case, the complainant company admittedly availed Cash Credit to her extent of Rs.1.25 Crores from OPs vide CC Account No.1488008700001564 maintained in the name of M/s Prime Trans Express Pvt. Ltd.   In this view of the matter, this case is clearly beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum, as prescribed under Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides that this Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation if any claimed does not exceeds Rs.20,00,000.  Hence, keeping in view the provisions of Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission in Ambrish Kumar Shukla’s case (supra) this complaint is not maintainable being out of pecuniary ambit of this Forum.

 

6]       For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is dismissed in limine being not maintainable for want of pecuniary jurisdiction. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate authority/Commission, having the pecuniary jurisdiction, under the provisions of law for redressal of its grievance. 

         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the complainant, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

13^th December, 2019                                                                         Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER