AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This complaint case was listed for further proceedings on 2.11.2017. Parties were heard. On the one hand, the learned counsel for the complainant has filed application to close right of the OP to file the written statement and on the other hand the OP has already filed the written statement on 3.7.2017 and he presses for its acceptance. The learned counsel for the OP also stated that the complaint was not maintainable before this Commission on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction. It was stated that the complainant has clubbed the matter relating to two different loan accounts in the present complaint, whereas the actual matter relates only to one loan account under which the hypothecated sale deed has been returned to the complainant and the complainant is alleging tampering by the OP in this regard.
The learned counsel for the complainants stated that one loan of Rs.72,79,704/- was taken by three joint loanees namely, Ms. Sunita Shukla, Mr. Hemant Shukla and Mr. Saurabh Shukla, whereas the second loan of Rs.62,30,104/- has been taken by Ms. Varsha Shukla (Varsha Aggarwal) and Mr. Saurabh Shukla. Two different sale deeds were deposited separately as security with the Bank in two loan accounts. As the second loan account of Ms. Varsha Shukla (Varsha Aggarwal) and Mr. Saurabh Shukla has been totally liquidated, the complainants had requested the Bank to return the concerned sale deed. When the sale deed was returned, it has been found that the same has been tampered with by the Bank as in place of photograph of Varsha Shukla, the photo of Sunita Shukla is pasted. The complainant had again got the copy from the Sub-Registrar office and copy revealed that the photo of Varsha Shukla was there on the sale deed. Thus, alleging deficiency on the part of the Bank, this complaint has been filed. As the total value of the two loan amounts is more than Rupees one crore, therefore this Commission has the pecuniary jurisdiction. It was further clarified that the first loan which was in the name of Ms. Sunita Shukla, Mr. Hemant Shukla and Mr. Saurabh Shukla has not been fully repaid and therefore, hypothecated sale deed in that matter is still lying with the Bank. The complainants are not sure whether the same has also been tampered with.
After considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, one thing is clear that present complaint has been filed in respect of only one sale deed which is in the name of Ms. Varsha Shukla (Varsha Aggarwal) and Mr. Saurabh Shukla and the deficiency of the Bank has been alleged only against this sale deed as the other sale deed relating to Ms. Sunita Shukla, Mr. Hemant Shukla and Mr. Saurabh Shukla is still with the Bank so no deficiency can be assumed by the complainant on presumption. Thus, only one sale deed is involved in the present consumer complaint. The value of the sale deed is Rs.58,50,000/- and the loan amount against which security was given was Rs.62,30,104/-. Thus, from both angles, the amount of the service is less than Rs. one crore. The prayer in the complaint states that the OP be directed to pay each of the four complainants a sum of Rs.30 lakhs. The four complainants are Ms. Sunita Shukla, Mr. Hemant Shukla and Mr. Saurabh Shukla and Ms. Varsha Shukla. Definitely, the sale deed in question relates only to two complainants Ms. Varsha Shukla (Varsha Aggarwal) and Mr. Saurabh Shukla, therefore, the other two complainants have been wrongly made party in the present complaint i.e. Ms. Sunita Shukla, and Mr. Hemant Shukla. Thus, from this aspect also the relief in the complaint is only for Rs.60 lakhs. Thus, considering from all the angles, the total value of the service comes to less than Rs.One crore in the present complaint. As per Section 21(1)(a)(d), this Commission has the pecuniary jurisdiction to decide the complaints where the value of goods/ services is more than Rs.one crore. Accordingly, the present complaint does not fall within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission.
Based on the above discussion, I find that this Commission lacks pecuniary jurisdiction to deal with the present complaint and accordingly, the Consumer Complaint No.2151 of 2016 is dismissed for want of pecuniary jurisdiction. However, liberty is granted to the complainants to file the appropriate complaint before the concerned State Commission. The time spent in this Commission shall not be considered while considering the aspect of limitation.