State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Anu Bhandari vs State Bank Of Patiala on 1 April, 2015
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH Consumer Complaint No. 13 of 2015 Date of Institution 22.01.2015 Date of Decision 01.04.2015 Anu Bhandari d/o Sh.K.C.Azad, Advocate, r/o 35-B, Model Town Phagwara, District Kapurthala, Punjab. .......Complainant V E R S U S State Bank of Patiala, SCO No.89 to 107, Branch Sector 8B, Chandigarh, through its Manager. Chief Regional Manager, State Bank of Patiala, SCO No.89 to 107, Branch Sector 8B, Chandigarh. Head Office, The Mall, Patiala, State Bank of Patiala, Patiala. ...... Opposite Parties BEFORE: SH. DEV RAJ, PRESIDING MEMBER
MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER Argued by:
Sh.Gaurav Bhayyia Gilothra, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Ajay Bhardwaj, Advocate, proxy for Sh.Vikas Chatrath, Advocate for the Opposite Parties.
PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER In brief, the facts of the case are that the complainant was having personal saving bank account No.65007533132 in State Bank of Patiala, Branch at Sector 8-B, Chandigarh and during the period of 5-6 years, she deposited an amount of Rs.41 lacs and converted FDRs with the Bank vide detail (Annexure C-1). It was stated that the complainant was also having joint savings account, with her husband in the same Bank. It was further stated that the complainant's matrimonial life was not well, due to which, she left her matrimonial house and started living alongwith her children at Phagwara with her father, Mr.K.C.Azad. It was further stated that the complainant went to the Bank in May, 2013 to get her money withdrawn, deposited in the shape of FDRs, but she was shocked to know that all the FDRs worth Rs.41 lacs were withdrawn by her husband while transferring the same into various accounts, which was a fraud and an illegal act. The complainant immediately reported the matter to the local Police and FIR No.139 dated 17.07.2013 was lodged with PS, Sector 3, Chandigarh (Annexure C-2) under Section 420/120B of IPC against Mr.Pradeep Bhandari (husband of the complainant) and his mother Mrs.Prabha Bhandari for duping the petitioner of Rs.41 lacs by illegally withdrawing the money deposited in the name of the complainant. It was further stated that the complainant, while inquiring the matter found that the modus operandi to withdraw the money from the FDRs of the complainant was, in fact, facilitated by the Bank only, the rule being that the person whose name in which the FDRs were existing, the proceeds of the same could be transferred only to his/her account.
It was further stated that the FDRs, in original, when presented before the Bank, the officials of the Bank without any information to the complainant, deposited the FDRs amount worth Rs.41 lacs in the joint account of Mr.Pradeep Bhandari and the complainant, but neither any written nor oral intimation was given to her while transferring the FDRs amount to other account, in fact, the Bank simply wrote down that Mr.Pradeep instructed to transfer money into the joint account of Mr.Pradeep, which was not only illegal but against the Financial Institutions Protection Policies for its customers. It was further stated that the act of the Bank by transferring the money deposited on the individual name of the complainant to the name of third person is a big deficiency in service. It was further stated that the Bank failed to show from accounts as to how the money was withdrawn from the account of the complainant. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties were deficient, in rendering service, as also, indulged into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the "Act" only), was filed.
In their written statement, the Opposite Parties stated that the complainant had not approached this Commission with clean hands, and suppressed and concealed the material facts in the complaint filed before this Commission. It was further stated that the entire case of the complainant rests upon Annexure C-1 and C-2, wherein, the complainant alleged cheating and forgery by using her forged signatures for transferring the amount from the fixed deposits to the savings account/withdrawal of the amount etc. It was further stated that as per the settled law, where there are allegations of forgery or fraud contained in the complaint, the same could not be decided under the Consumer Protection Act, because such a dispute could be examined and adjudicated, if at all, by the Civil Courts, as it involved complicated questions of facts and law and detailed evidence was required to be undertaken therein. It was further stated that a bare perusal of the complaint would show that primarily there was grievance of the complainant against her husband and her mother-in-law Ms.Prabha Bhandari, but they were not impleaded as a party. It was further stated that the complainant herself issued instructions to credit the amount in the savings account, which was either in her individual name or the joint account including Mr.Pardeep Bhandari. The joint account had instructions that the same could be operated by either or survivor and,as such, Mr.Pardeep Bhandari was also competent enough to withdraw the money from the joint savings account. It was further stated that the complainant used to withdraw the amount and, thereafter, sometimes re-deposit in the shape of a new FDR of different amount/denomination, which she herself knew because her income tax returns etc. would be a testimony to the said fact which conveniently were not attached with the present complaint.
It was further stated that a perusal of the instructions on the fixed deposits would show that the complainant had asked the amount to be transferred in the said joint account. It was further stated that a bare perusal of Annexure C-3 (Colly.) would show that the same bear the signatures of the complainant for crediting the said FDRs in the SB A/c, which was opened in the name of the complainant and her husband, wherein, the operation mode was either or survivor. Thus, the Opposite Parties performed their legal obligations by transferring the amount of the said FDRs in the said account, for which, no fault could be attributed to them and the same was done, as per the instructions of the complainant. It was further stated that the amount was being transferred in terms of the instructions of the complainant from time to time and there was no breach of the RBI Guidelines. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties were neither deficient, in rendering service nor indulged into unfair trade practice.
The complainant, filed rejoinder by way of affidavit of Anu Bhandari to the written statement of the Opposite Parties, wherein she reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and refuted those, contained in the written version of the Opposite Parties.
The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.
We have heard the Counsel for parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.
The Counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant was having personal saving bank account in State Bank of Patiala, Branch at Sector 8-B, Chandigarh and a joint account with her husband, namely, Mr.Pradeep Bhandari. He further submitted that during the period of 5-6 years, she had deposited an amount of Rs.41 lacs and converted the amount into FDRs with the Bank (Annexure C-1). He further submitted that the matrimonial life of the complainant was not well, due to which, she lived separately with her father. He further submitted that when the complainant went to the Bank in May, 2013 for withdrawal of the amount deposited in the shape of FDRs, she was shocked to know that all the FDRs worth Rs.41 lacs had been withdrawn by her husband fraudulently and, as such, she lodged an FIR with Police Station, Sector 3, Chandigarh against her husband and mother-in-law. He further submitted that FDRs, in original, when presented by the complainant before the Bank, their officials, without any information to her, had deposited the FDRs amount worth Rs.41 lacs in their joint account but neither any written nor oral intimation was given to her while transferring the FDRs amount to the joint account. He further submitted that the act of the Bank by transferring the money deposited on the individual name of the complainant in the name and account of a third person, amounted to deficiency, in service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice.
On the other hand, the Counsel for the Opposite Parties, submitted that the complicated question of fraud and forgery are involved in the present case, so the same should be relegated to the Civil Court. He further submitted that a bare perusal of Annexure C-3 (Colly.) would show that the same bear the signatures of the complainant for crediting the said FDRs in the SB A/c, which was opened in the name of the complainant and her husband, wherein, the operation mode was either or survivor. He further submitted that the joint account had instructions that the same could be operated by either or survivor, as such, the husband of the complainant was also competent enough to withdraw the money from the joint savings account. He further submitted that the amount was being transferred in terms of the instructions of the complainant from time to time and there was no breach of the RBI Guidelines.
Admittedly, the complainant was having personal savings account No.65007533132 in State Bank of Patiala, Sector 8-B Branch, Chandigarh, and also joint savings account, with her husband in the same Bank. It is also, an admitted fact that the complainant was having 15 FDRs in the State Bank of Patiala, Sector 8-B Branch, Chandigarh vide copy of details (at page No.26).
No doubt, the complainant was having personal saving account and also joint savings account, with her husband in State Bank of Patiala, Sector 8-B Branch, Chandigarh. The complainant also admitted in her complaint that there was some dispute with her husband, due to which, she left the house of her husband and started living separately with her father. As per the complainant, she was having FDRs worth Rs.41 lacs with the Bank, which were withdrawn by her husband fraudulently. Therefore, the complainant also filed the complaint before the Economic Offences Wing and FIR No.139 dated 17.07.2013 was lodged with Police Station, Sector 3, Chandigarh under Section 420/120B of IPC against Mr.Pradeep Bhandari and his mother Mrs.Prabha Bhandari (Annexure C-2). While complainant has alleged that proceeds of FDRs were fraudulently credited in her joint account with Mr.Pradeep Bhandari, Opposite Parties have averred that the same was done on the instructions of the complainant.
Since there are allegations of fraud and forgery and disputed and complicated questions of fact and law are involved, the issue could not be decided under the Consumer Protection Act, as it will require leading of voluminous evidence. In Bright Transport Company Vs. Sangli Sahakari Bank Ltd., II (2012) CPJ 151 (NC), it was held by the National Commission that the complaints which are based on the allegations of fraud, forgery, etc. and trial of which would require the leading of voluminous evidence and consideration thereof cannot be entertained by the Consumer Fora. In Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Munimahesh Patel 2006 (2) CPC 668 (SC), decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court; Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.I (1998) CPJ 13, a case decided by a four Member Bench of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi and M/s Singhal Swaroop Ispat Ltd. Vs United Commercial Bank III (1992) CPJ 50, a case decided by a three member Bench of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, it was held that when there are allegations of forgery, fraud and cheating, adjudication whereof, requires elaborate evidence, the same cannot be decided, by a Consumer Fora, proceedings before which, are summary in nature. In Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.'s case (supra), there was a dispute, about the disclosure of information, incorporated in the proposal form. Two copies of the proposal forms were produced. In one copy of the proposal form, the insured stated that she was working as a teacher, whereas, in the other copy of the proposal form, it was stated that she was a housewife. The insured, thus, on the basis of such information, obtained the Policy. The insured died. When the claim was filed by her legal representatives, the same was repudiated, on the ground, of a false disclosure of information, by the insured, in the proposal form. The District Forum accepted the complaint, which was filed by the legal representatives of the deceased insured. The State Commission set aside the order of the District Forum, on the ground that there was dispute of disclosure made, in the proposal form, and the information given and, as such, the facts being disputed and of complicated nature, the complainants should take appropriate proceedings for establishing his claim, and seeking the reliefs in the Court of competent Jurisdiction. Feeling aggrieved, Revision Petition, was filed before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which accepted the same, holding that the information disclosed by the insured, had no nexus with her death and, as such, restored the order of the District Forum. Feeling aggrieved, the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., filed Civil Appeal bearing No.4091 of 2006, in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the proceedings, before the Commission were essentially summary in nature. It was further held that the factual position was required to be established by documents. It was further held that, in view of the complex factual position, the matter could not be examined, by the Consumer Fora, and the appropriate Forum, was the Civil Court. In Reliance Industries Ltd.'s case (supra), it was held that when the questions of fraud and cheating are involved, in regard to the claim of the complainant, which require thorough scrutiny, including the examination of various documents, and supporting oral evidence, the Consumer Fora cannot adjudicate upon the matter. It was further held that the questions of forgery/fraud, cheating and conspiracy, could be satisfactorily resolved, by the Civil Court. Similar principle of law, was laid down, in M/s Singhal Swaroop Ispat Ltd.'s case (supra) decided by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case.
13. Since, the disputed and complex questions of fact and law, are involved in the instant case, as to fraud and forgery committed by the husband of the complainant by fraudulently withdrawing an amount of Rs.41 lacs, we are of the considered opinion that for proving such allegations of forgery and fraud, thorough analysis of voluminous documents, and elaborate examination of the witnesses, and their cross-examination, are required. Such disputed and complex questions/facts, therefore, could not be adjudicated upon, by the Consumer Fora, proceedings before which are summary, in nature. Thus, only the Civil Court could decide such disputed and complex questions of fact and law.
14. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint, being not maintainable, is dismissed, with no order as to costs. However, the complainant shall be at liberty to approach the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction, for redressal of her grievance.
15. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
16. The file be consigned to Record Room, after due completion.
Pronounced.
01/04/2015 Sd/- (DEV RAJ) PRESIDING MEMBER Sd/- (PADMA PANDEY) MEMBER rb STATE COMMISSION Consumer Complaint No. 13 of 2015 (Anu Bhandari Vs. State Bank of Patiala & Ors.) Argued by: Sh.Gaurav Bhayyia Gilothra, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Ajay Bhardwaj, Advocate, proxy for Sh.Vikas Chatrath, Advocate for the Opposite Parties.
Dated _the 1st day of April, 2015
-.-
On 17.03.2015, Counsel for the complainant has filed an application under Section 13(4) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for appointment of expert witness or appointment of any local commission to give expert opinion, which was opposed by the Opposite Parties by filing reply thereto.
2. Arguments on the application, aforesaid heard.
3. Since in the instant case, disputed and complex questions/facts are involved, adjudication whereof will require leading of voluminous evidence as well as examination and cross-examination of the witnesses, which is not possible under the summary proceedings and, same can be adjudicated upon by a Civil Court, the application, aforesaid, filed by the complainant, is rendered infructuous.
4. The application is disposed of accordingly.
5. Arguments, in the main complaint already heard.
6. Vide our detailed order of the even date recorded separately, the complaint being not maintainable, is dismissed, with no order as to costs. However, the complainant shall be at liberty to approach the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction, for redressal of his grievance.
7. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.
Sd/- Sd/- [DEV RAJ] PRESIDING MEMBER [PADMA PANDEY] MEMBER rb