Advocates:
['M/S GENICON AND ASSOCIATES', '', 'T V SURESH KUMAR-MS', 'N A SRINIVASAN-MS', 'M/S A V RADHAKRISHNAN', '', 'S PRADEEPAN-MS', 's kalaiyarasi baskar', 'p bharathi nesan']

C.R.P. (PD) No.3886 of 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 29.09.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN

CRP. (PD) No.3866 of 2019

M/s Beauty Wars,

Rep. By its Managing Director, S.Sivakumar

through his (POWER AGENT)

prasanth Raju (Accountant)

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Chief Manager,

South Indian Bank Ltd.,

100 Feet Road,

Gandhipuram,

Coimbatore.

... Respondent

Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 Constitution of India to

set aside the fair and decreetal order passed by the learned District Consumer

Disputes Redressal Forum, Coimbatore, in C.C.Sr.No.218 of 2016 and direct

the forum below to take the petitioner's complaint on file.

For Petitioner

: Mr. Gokul

For Respondent

: Mr.S.Pradeepan

for M/s.A.V.Radhakrishnan

1/7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

C.R.P. (PD) No.3886 of 2019

***

O R D E R

This petition is filed to set aside the order passed by the District

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Coimbatore in C.C.Sr.No.218 of 2016.

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he obtained loan

of Rs.2,25,00,000/- as a term loan on 29.12.2010. The petitioner having not

satisfied with the service of the respondent shifted loan amount to M/S Yes

Bank. Then M/s. Yes Bank, taken over cash credit facility of the petitioner by

paying the entire loan to the respondent. The entire amount due from the

petitioner to the respondent was closed. However, the respondent debited

excess amount of Rs.2,75,300/- without any base. On enquiry, it revealed that

this amount was debited as a charge for pre closure of term loan. This charge of

Rs.2,75,300/- for pre closure of term loan is not in accordance with the terms of

the agreement and under law. Therefore, the petitioner filed a complaint before

the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Coimbatore, claiming a sum

of Rs.2,75,300/- and also a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation towards

mental agony caused to the petitioner. This complaint was returned by the

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Coimbatore, saying that ''the

amount involved is Rs.1,25,52,702/- ie., more than Rupees One Crore for

2/7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

C.R.P. (PD) No.3886 of 2019

which this forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction. Challenging this order, this

Civil Revision petition is preferred.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that taking the loan

amount the return of the complaint that it has no pecuniary jurisdiction is not

correct. Therefore, prayed for setting aside the order of the learned trial judge

and for direction to entertain this complaint and dispose it in accordance with

law.

4.The learned counsel for the respondent opposed the submission of the

learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the order was passed

taking into consideration, the entire transaction and therefore, there is nothing

illegal about this order.

5.Section 11 of Consumer protection Act 1986 deals with jurisdiction of

the District Forum. Section 11(1) reads as follows:

''11(1). Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District

Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the

value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any,

claimed [does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs]''

It is made clear from this Section that if the value of the goods or services

3/7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

C.R.P. (PD) No.3886 of 2019

and compensation, if any claimed does not exceed Rs.20,00,000/-, The District

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Coimbatore, has pecuniary jurisdiction.

In the case before hand the value of the claim is Rs.2,25,000/- and the

compensation claimed is Rs.10,00,000/-. This claim is well within pecuniary

jurisdiction of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Coimbatore.

Taking the value of the loan amount of Rs.1,25,52,702/- and returning the

complaint stating that the District Co