Territorial jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act is not automatically conferred by the mere existence of a branch or registered office of the opposite party; the cause of action, either wholly or in part, must also arise within the commission's territorial limits.

CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE MS. BIMLA KUMARI, MEMBER (FEMALE)

Present: Appellant in person.

None for the Respondent.

PER: HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT

JUDGMENT

1. The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are as under:

“The complainant has filed the present complaint for arrangement letter dated 18.05.2011 to be declared as null and void, OP be directed to fore-close the loan account dated 08.02.2013 and issue an NOC to remove hypothecation. It is also prayed that a sum of Rs.70,000/- be provided for physical, mental and social agony and financial losses and inconvenience caused to the complainant alongwith a sum of Rs.25,000/- on account of litigation cost.

The complainant has stated that he availed car loan of Rs.4,00,000/- to purchase a Toyota Etios from the State Bank of Patiala (hereinafter referred to as OP). The loan was repayable in 48 EMIs of Rs.10.146/ each which was calculated at 10% interest ie. below BPLR dated 18.05.2011 on redefining balance. Copy of the agreement dated 18.05.2011 is attached as Annexure-B. The OP then made payment of Rs.4,00,000/- to Espirit Toyota. The Complainant paid Rs.2,000/- to the OP on 18.5.2011 on account of service charges and handed 20 post dated cheques payable at Punjab National Bank, BCP, New Delhi and 21 State Bank of Patiala payable at OP-2. A total of Rs.40,584/ was paid by the complainant vide 40 EMIs of Rs.10,416/- Copy of the statement of account is attached as Annexure-D. It is the case of the complainant that he noticed the irregularity in the rate of interest being charged on 05.02.2013 and in the account statement and then wrote an e-mail to the OP stating that an interest of 12% was being charged on account of car loan amount whereas according to the arrangement letter dated 18.5.2011, the interest on the loan would be 10% i.e. 4:25% below BPLR. It is further stated that the OP assured the complainant vide e-mail dated 25.3.2013 that "your loan account No. 65116150022 with our Branch is to be payable in 48 instalments of Rs. 10,146/- each as per Bank's agreement with you". The copy of the e-mail is attached as Annexure-G. The complainant kept paying EMIs as per due date. But to utter shock when he decided to fore-close the loan account on 25.7.2014 the balance demanded and shown in the account statement was Rs.97,450/- which was wrong as per the agreement and the complainant had to pay the balance amount of Rs.87,164/- which meant that the OP was charging interest @12.5% which is neither as per agreement executed dated 18.05.2011 nor agreement dated 25.03.2013 and neither in accordance with guidelines issued by RBI dated 09.04.2010. The complainant sent a legal notice on 28.7.2014 calling upon the OPs to provide a suitable clarification which was replied by the OP vide their letter dated 14.08.2014. It is the case of the complainant that the agreement dated 18.05.2011 is a generic document with many pre-printed ambiguous conditions and is against public policy and in the eyes of law.

On the other hand, the OP has taken preliminary objections that the present complaint is groundless, misconceived and unsustainable in law. It is stated that it is not a consumer dispute and it is also stated that the Commission has not the requisite jurisdiction. It is also stated that the complainant had taken loan from the State Bank of Patiala, situated at HUDA Market, Sector-3, Faridabad-121004 and all the documents were signed by both the parties at Faridabad. Therefore, this Commission does not have the jurisdiction to entertain th