State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
P N B vs Jitendra Kumar on 8 January, 2018
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UP C-1 Vikrant Khand 1 (Near Shaheed Path), Gomti Nagar Lucknow-226010 Revision Petition No. RP/3/2018 (Arisen out of Order Dated 01/11/2017 in Case No. C/123/2017 of District Shambhal) 1. P N B Shambhal ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Jitendra Kumar Shambhal ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'ABLE MR. JUSTICE PRESIDENT PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHTAR HUSAIN KHAN PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. Smt Balkumari MEMBER For the Petitioner: For the Respondent: Dated : 08 Jan 2018 Final Order / Judgement
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW REVISION NO. R/03/2018 (Against the order dated 01-11-2017 in Complaint Case No. 123/2017 of the District Consumer Forum, Sambhal ) Punjab National Bank Branch at Gunnaur District Sambhal, U.P. Through Branch Manager Punjab National Bank Through President/M.D. Head Office at Bhikhaje Cama Palace New Delhi ...Revisionists Vs. Jitendra Kumar, S/o Sri Brijnandan Prasad R/o Kasba Babrala Tehsil Gunnaur, District Sambhal, U.P. ...Opposite party BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHTER HUSAIN KHAN, PRESIDENT For the Revisionist : Mr. Avaneesh Pal, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party : Dated : 12-01-2018 JUDGMENT MR. JUSTICE A. H. KHAN, PRESIDENT (ORAL) Mr. Avaneesh Pal, learned Counsel for revisionists appeared.
I have heard learned Counsel for the revisionists and perused impugned order dated 01-11-2017 passed by District Consumer Forum, Sambhal in Complaint Case No.123/2017 Jitendra Kumar V/s Punjab National Bank whereby District Consumer Forum has rejected two applications moved by opposite party No.2 of the complaint namely Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Branch Office Gunnaur, District Sambhal.
Perusal of record shows that by moving one of the above applications the opposite party No.2 has submitted that opposite party No.1 of the complaint namely Punjab National Bank through Chairman/Managing Director, Principal Office Bheekaji Kama Palace, :2: New Delhi is not a necessary party in the complaint. Therefore, his name should be deleted.
Second application was moved by above opposite party No.2 before District Consumer Forum with submission that the complainant is not a consumer of bank. The dispute raised by complainant in complaint is limited to the recovery of rent. Therefore, the District Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to hear complaint.
After having heard on above two applications the District Consumer Forum has held that after evidence of parties it may be decided as to whether Rs.1,86,100/- has been withdrawn by the then Manager of the opposite party No.2 or said amount has been withdrawn by the complainant.
In view of above the District Consumer Forum has rejected above two applications moved by opposite party No.2 of the complaint and has directed opposite party to produce evidence.
Feeling aggrieved with the order passed by District Consumer Forum the opposite party No.2 of the complaint has moved this revision petition under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 before State Commission.
It is contended by learned Counsel for the revisionists that the judicial pronouncement of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of R. S. Singh V/s U. P. MalariaNirichhak Sang Civil Revision No. 5600 of 2006 was referred before District Consumer Forum but the District Consumer Forum has passed order ignoring this judicial pronouncement. As such the impugned order passed by District Consumer Forum is erroneous and illegal.
It is further contended by learned Counsel for the revisionists that the dispute raised in complaint relates to recovery of rent from previous Branch Manager of the Bank. As such the complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
It is further contended by learned Counsel for the revisionists that the amount is alleged to have withdrawn from the account of complainant by previous Manager of the branch fraudulently and the issue of fraud may be decided by criminal court only. Therefore, the complaint is not :3: maintainable before District Consumer Forum on this ground also.
I have considered the submission made by learned Counsel for the revisionists.
Learned Counsel for the revisionists has referred judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of R. S. Singh V/s U. P. Malaria Nirichhak Sang Civil Revision No. 5600 of 2006 wherein it has been observed that requiring presence of senior officer of government in court should be as a last resort in rare and exceptional cases.
Perusal of impugned order passed by the District Consumer Forum shows that no direction of personal attendance has been made by District Consumer Forum. As such the proposition laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the above case is not applicable on the facts and circumstances of this case. Opposite party No.1 of the complaint is Punjab National Bank through President/Managing Director. The bank through its Managing Director may be liable for the fraudulent or illegal acts of their subordinates on the basis of vicarious liability. Therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that the opposite party No.1 has been wrongly impleaded in the complaint. The District Consumer Forum has not decided this issue finally vide impugned order. The District Consumer Forum has held that this issue shall be decided after evidence of parties. Further perusal of complaint shows that the complainant has filed complaint for redressal of his grievance arising out of alleged unauthorized withdrawal from his account maintained by revisionists bank.
In view of above, after having gone through the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no sufficient ground for interference in the impugned order passed by District Consumer Forum.
In view of above present revision is dismissed with liberty to revisionists to raise all issues before District Consumer Forum at the time of final hearing and District Consumer Forum shall pass order in accordance with law on the point raised by revisionist.
Let copy of this order be made available to the parties within 15 days positively as per rules.
( JUSTICE A H KHAN ) [HON'ABLE MR. JUSTICE PRESIDENT] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHTAR HUSAIN KHAN] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MRS. Smt Balkumari] MEMBER