Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/593/2014

Munish Bajaj & Ors. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tata Capital Housing Finance Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Gunjan Rishi Adv.

03 Jan 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	593/2014
Date of Institution	:	18.11.2014
Date of Decision	:	03/01/2017

 

                                       

                                       

1.     Munish Bajaj s/o Sh.Harvinder Kumar Bajaj r/o H.No.886, Sector 8, Panchkula, Haryana.

2.     Harvinder Kumar Bajaj r/o H.No.886, Sector 8, Panchkula, Haryana.

3.     Chanchal Kumari w/o Sh.Harvinder Kumar Bajaj r/o H.No.886, Sector 8, Panchkula, Haryana.

4.     M/s Limelight Foods Pvt. Ltd.,  SCF 12, Grain Market, Sector 26, Chandigarh through its Director Munish Bajaj.

                                ...  Complainants.

Versus

Tata Capital Housing Finance Ltd., SCO 147-148, Ground Floor, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh -160017.

…. Opposite Party.

BEFORE:   

SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

SHRI RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

 

Argued by: Sh.T.S.Khaira, Advocate for the complainants.

                    Sh. Sandeep Suri, Adv. for the OP.

 

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.          In nutshell, the case of the complainants is that they applied for the loan in the year 2013 with the OP for their personal need. The said loan was got transferred from HDFC Bank. After completion of requisite formalities, the OP sanctioned the loan for a sum of Rs.1.90 crores @ 12.50% p.a. against the property SCF No.12, Grain Market, Sector 26, Chandigarh under the nomenclature Home Equity Program vide letter dated 09.07.2013. The said loan was to be paid in 120 EMIs of Rs.2,78,115/-.  The OP charged a sum of Rs.1,60,113//- as processing fee.  Thereafter, the complainants received a welcome letter  dated 17.07.2013, as per which the OP had disbursed a sum of Rs.1,38,75,877/- and changed the tenure to 180 months from 120 months as earlier mentioned in the sectioned letter.  Subsequently, the complainants decided to foreclose the loan with the OP and transfer it to other financial intuition because of better terms and rate being offered.  According to the complainants, the OP had illegally charged a sum of Rs.4,16,665/- as foreclosure charges against the circulars dated 07.05.2014 and 14.07.2014 issued by the RBI. It has further been averred that the foreclosure charges have been deposited under protest vide letter dated 18.09.2014. It has been asserted that the OP has failed to refund the foreclosure charges despite their repeated requests, which amounts to deficiency in service as also indulgence into unfair trade practice on their part. Hence, this complaint. 
2.         In their written statement, the OP took preliminary objections inter alia that  the loan was availed of by the complainants in respect of commercial property and as such the complainants are not consumers as defined under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986; that the  guidelines issued by the RBI vide circulars Annexure C-4 and C-5 are not applicable to the facts of the present case as the same are applicable to the Banks and not to NBFs.   It was denied that the loan was availed for the personal use.  It has also been denied that the foreclosure charges were deposited under protest.  It has further been pleaded that the loan facility having been availed by multiple borrowers cannot be said to be a facility availed by the individual borrowers. It has further been pleaded that  the loan facility having been availed by a company cannot be said to be a facility availed by the individual borrower. It has been denied that the loan applied and sanctioned to the complainant No.1 is a principal borrower.  In fact the loan was sanctioned and granted to all the borrowers who were jointly and severally liable to pay the dues against the loan.   It has further been pleaded that the fore closure charges were charged as per the agreement. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.         We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on record.

 

4.         After hearing the Counsel for the parties and going through the documentary evidence on record, we are of the considered view that the complaint is liable to be dismissed for want 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.”

                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 per the own version of the complainants made in the complaint, they had availed the services of the OP for grant of the loan to the tune of Rs.1,90,00,000/- against the property in question, qua which the fore closure charges to the tune of Rs.4,16,665 P were charged by the OP from the complainants at the time of the foreclosure of the said loan amount, 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.

5.         For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is dismissed being not maintainable for want of pecuniary jurisdiction. However, the complainants are at liberty to approach the appropriate authority/Commission, having the pecuniary jurisdiction, under the provisions of law for redressal of their grievance.  They 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. 
6.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

03/01/2017                                                                        sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER