National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Pawan Kumar Agrawal vs Assistant General Manager on 23 April, 2012
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 342 OF 2012. along with ( I.A. No. 1 of 2012) (Against the order dated 4.1.2012 in Appeal No.447 of 2011 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chattisgarh, Raipur) Pawan Kumar Agrawal S/o Shri Ramkumar Agrawal Address, Shri Pyarelal Agrawal Marg Ramsagar Para, Raipur, (CG) Petitioner. Versus Assistant General Manager, Bank of Baroda, Main Branch Maudhapara, Raipur (CG) .Respondent. BEFORE: HONBLE MR.JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER For the Petitioner (s):Mr. Chetan Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rahul Shrivastava, Advocate. Pronounced on: 23rd April, 2012. PER MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER ORDER
In this revision there is challenge to order dated 4.1.2012, passed by Chattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur( for short as State Commission).
2. Brief facts are that petitioner/complainant is owner of Locker No. 240A, in the respondents branch. It is alleged that respondent is prohibiting him to operate that locker w.e.f. 29.10.2010. Thus, respondent has committed deficiency in providing banking service. Accordingly, consumer complaint was filed before District Forum.
3. The complaint was resisted by the respondent-bank on the grounds that initially the locker was in the name of grand-father of the petitioner, as well as Mr. B. L. Agrawal, elder brother of the petitioner. Later on, grand-father of the petitioner died and his elder brother, vide letter dated 03.07.2009, requested the respondent to include the name of petitioner, as owner of the locker and Mr. B.L. Agrawal, himself surrendered his rights. In these circumstances, name of petitioner was entered as owner of the locker. Later on, Income Tax Department conducted certain inquiries against elder brother of the petitioner and prohibited respondent to permit the petitioner to operate the bank locker. In these circumstances, in compliance of Prohibitory Order of Income Tax Department, petitioner was restrained from operating that locker and in doing so, respondent has not committed any deficiency in providing banking services.
4. District Forum did not agree with the defence of the respondent and allowed the complaint of the petitioner, vide order dated 11.11.2010. Amongst other directions, District Forum passed a declaration to the effect declaring the petitioner as sole owner of locker of 240A allotted by the respondent .
5. It is well settled that District Forum has no jurisdiction to pass any such declaratory decree.
6. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, respondent filed an appeal before the State Commission which accepted the same.
7. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that State Commission completely overlooked the fact that there was no prohibitory order in force which conveyed the respondent to stop petitioner from operating the allotted locker.
8. Other contention made by learned counsel is that State Commission has ignored the statutory provisions of section 132(8A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which clearly articulate that such order shall not be in force for a period exceeding sixty days, from the date of order. Under these circumstances, impugned order is liable to be set aside.
9. It is an admitted case that criminal proceedings regarding locker in question had been pending in the Criminal Court. However, petitioner has withheld those documents so as to show as to what is the nature of those criminal proceedings pending against him and what is the status of the criminal case. It was the respondent who brought the certain documents before the State Commission and State Commission after considering those documents passed the impugned order observing;
9. During the course of hearing of this appeal, the appellant/Bank has brought on record, copy of Charge Sheet filed by Central Bureau of Investigation in the Court of Special Magistrate for C.B.I. Cases, Raipur (C.G.). In that Charge Sheet, after investigation in paragraph No.16 the brief facts of the case have been stated in the following words :-
. 16.
It had been alleged in the FIR that Shri B.L. Agrawal, IAS, Govt. of Chhattisgarh entered into a criminal conspiracy with his brother Shri Pawan Kumar Agrawal and Shri Antony Samy, the then Manager, Bank of Baroda, Main Branch, Raipur in pursuance thereof, the accused persons committed offences of impersonation, cheating, forgery, falsification of bank records and criminal misconduct in the matter of fraudulent transfer of ownership of locker no.240A which was in the joint names of Shri B.L. Agrawal and Late R.D. Goel. Shri Pawan Kumar Agrawals father was fraudulently inserted in the bank records showing him as the renter of the locker in place of Shri B.L. Agrawal with the help of Shri Antony Samy. Investigation disclosed that Shri B.L. Agrawal (A-1) and Shri Pawan Kumar Agrawal (A-3) are real brothers. Shri Pawan Agrawal (A-3) is the youngest brother of Shri B.L. Agrawal (A-1). Shri R.D. Goel was the cousin of Shri B.L.Agrawal.s father .
10. Thus, it is clear from the Charge Sheet that Central Bureau of investigation, has also conducted investigation regarding bank locker and on investigation, an alleged conspiracy, along with other serious charges, were found to have been committed by the complainant/respondent, by an Officer of the appellant/Bank and by an IAS Officer, who is employee of the State Government. Thus, the matter regarding the locker, is also pending in a competent Criminal Court.
11. Some other documents have also been filed by the appellant/Bank along with Charge Sheet.
12. On the basis aforesaid all material, it is abundantly clear that it was not a simple matter of prohibiting operation of the locker No.240A by the appellant/Bank, but it was matter, which may come under the doctrine of frustration of contract, as defined in Section 56 of the Contract Act. The above provisions also talks regarding subsequent event on account of which compliance of a contract becomes impossible and such subsequent event includes Prohibitory Orders, issued by competent authorities. Thus, if a Prohibitory Order, has been issued by a competent officer of the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department and in compliance of that Prohibitory Order, the appellant/Bank was to restrain the complainant/respondent from operating locker in question, then contract regarding authority to operate the locker and to have title over the property kept in that locker becomes frustrated and void and cannot be enforced by filing a consumer complaint before District Forum. Such matters cannot be decided in summary proceedings, to be conducted by the District Forum.
13. Thus, it is clear that complaint, which was filed by the complainant/respondent before District Forum, was containing such complicated facts, which can only be adjudicated and decided either by competent Civil Court in full dress trial or by some other Tribunal or Authorities. It appears that learned District Forum has committed an error in law in passing the impugned order, in favour of the complainant/respondent overlooking all aforesaid aspects of the matter.
14. Therefore, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The complaint filed by the complainant/respondent, is also dismissed, with liberty to file a civil suit before a competent Court or any other proceedings before any other competent Authority, if law permits. No orders as to the cost of this appeal .
10. Since, criminal proceedings with regard to the locker in question about the alleged fraud, are pending before a Criminal Court, the District Forum had no jurisdiction to declare petitioner as the owner of locker No. 240A. Thus, respondent rightly restrained the petitioner from operating the locker, in view of the directions issued by the competent authorities.
11. Under these circumstances, we find no reason to disagree with the reasoning given by the State Commission.
Thus, there is no infirmity and illegality in the impugned order passed by the State Commission. Present petition being without any legal basis, is dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/-( Rupees Ten Thousand Only).
12. Petitioner is directed to deposit the costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) by way of demand draft in the name of Consumer Legal Aid Account within four weeks from today.
13. In case, costs are not deposited within the prescribed period, then petitioner shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a., till realization.
14. Pending application stands disposed of.
15. List on 25th May, 2012, for compliance.
...J (V.B. GUPTA) (PRESIDING MEMBER) ...
(VINAY KUMAR) MEMBER SSB/