Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/840/2017

Surinder Kumar Singal - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Naveen Sheokand Adv. & Kriteka Sheokand Adv.

13 Nov 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	840/2017
Date of Institution	:	27.10.2017
Date of Decision	:	13.11.2017

 

                                       

                       

Surinder Kumar Singal r/o House No.541, Sector 33-B, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

Versus

1. M/s Bajaj Finance Ltd., Regd. Office: Bajaj Auto Limited Complex , Mumbai-Pune Road, Akurdi, Pune-411035, Maharashtra, India.
2. The Branch Manager, M/s Bajaj Finance Ltd., SCO 26, 1^st & 2^nd Floor, Sector 26, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh-160026.

…. Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:    SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

SHRI RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

Argued by:

Sh.Naveen Sheokand, Adv. for the complainant.

                                     

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.         Arguments at the point of pecuniary jurisdiction have been heard.
2.         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 liable to be dismissed on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction in view of the principle of law laid down in the latest judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission passed in the case titled as  Ambrish Kumar Shukla & 21 Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., CC No.97 of 2016, decided on 7.10.2016. 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.”

3.         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. In the instant case, as is evident from para 2 of the complaint, the complainant has availed the services of the OPs for availing the home loan to the tune of Rs.5,67,86,000/- and Rs.1,65,91,000/-  vide two different loan accounts, which 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 and the same deserves to be dismissed alone on this ground.
4.         For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is dismissed 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 his grievances.  The complainant may take advantage of the ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. PSG Industrial Institute, (1995) 3 SCC 583, to seek exclusion of time spent before this Forum. 
5.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.                      

Announced

13.11.2017

Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

 (RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER