State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Devashish Sanjaykumar Pradhan vs State Bank Of India on 21 March, 2024
1
Date of filing :22.11.2021
Date of order :21.03.2024
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL
COMMISSION,MUMBAI, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
FIRST APPEAL NO. : 1007 OF 2019
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 101 OF 2020
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : AURNGABAD.
Devashish s/o Sanjaykumar Pradhan, Appellant
R/o Plot No.G-24, Devgiri hills, (Adv.A.V.Patil)
Cidco, NS-1, Shivaji Nagar,
Aurangabad.
VERSUS
State Bank of India, Respondent
Industrial Area Branch, (Adv.Ruturaj Patil)
Town Centre, Cidco, Aurngabad.
Through its Branch Manager.
FIRST APPEAL NO. : 1008 OF 2019
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 102 OF 2020
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : AURNGABAD.
Devashish s/o Sanjaykumar Pradhan, Appellant
R/o Plot No.G-24, Devgiri hills, (Adv.A.V.Patil)
Cidco, NS-1, Shivaji Nagar,
Aurangabad.
VERSUS
State Bank of India, Respondent
Industrial Area Branch, (Adv.Ruturaj Patil)
Town Centre, Cidco, Aurngabad.
Through its Branch Manager.
FIRST APPEAL NO. : 1009 OF 2019
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 103 OF 2020
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : AURNGABAD.
Devashish s/o Sanjaykumar Pradhan, Appellant
R/o Plot No.G-24, Devgiri hills, (Adv.A.V.Patil)
Cidco, NS-1, Shivaji Nagar,
2
Aurangabad.
VERSUS
State Bank of India, Respondent
Industrial Area Branch, (Adv.Ruturaj Patil)
Town Centre, Cidco, Aurngabad.
Through its Branch Manager.
CORAM : Milind.S.Sonawane, Hon'ble Presiding Member.
Nagesh C.Kumbre, Hon'ble Member.
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 21/03/2024) Per Milind.S.Sonawane, Hon'ble Presiding Member.
In all these appeals parties are same. Therefore, we are giving common judgment in these matters.
2. These are the appeals challenging the legality and correctness of the order passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Aurangabad (the 'District Commission' for short) in CC NO. 101/2020, 102/2020, 103/2020.
3. The appellant is having the account with the respondent bank. On 23.10.2019 he submitted cheque no.045981 in the CST system kept for the depositing of the cheques. On 24.10.2019 it was informed to him on SMS that, the cheque is returned because of the insufficient funds in the account of the drawer. Rs.295/- were deducted from him account. However, the respondent bank not provided him the dishonour cheque and cheque return memo, despite of his several requests. It is his further case that, On 1.11.2019 he presented two chqeues bearing no. 045982 and 006023 in the CST cheques deposit 3 machine. Those two cheques were neither honoured not returned to him. The height is that, those dishonoured cheques were returned by the respondent to the 'drawer' namely Mr.Anil Gailkwad .Alleging the above facts to be deficient service appellant filed above referred three consumer cases before the District Commission.
4. The respondent appeared before the District Commission and contested the matter. It is contended by the respondent that, as a routine practice the payee of the cheque has to write the phone and account number on the back of the cheque. In the event that, the cheque is dishonoured the payee is usually contacted on that number to collect the dishonoured cheque and the memo. In the present case the appellant wrote the phone number of the drawer on the back of the cheque. Therefore, when the last two cheques were dishonoured the drawer came to collect the cheque. He immediately contacted the appellant and on his request only handed over the dishonoured cheques to the drawer. The drawer Mr.Anil Gaikwad and the appellant were the partners of the firm namely M/s Shree Sai Milk and Milk Products. Therefore, the cheques were handed over to Anil Gaikwad, who in turn retuned those cheques to the appellant. The appellant and Mr.Anil Gaikwad joined the hands and tried to defraud it. Therefore, the police complaint is also lodged against the appellant and Anil Gaikwad. It claimed that, there has been no deficiency caused to the appellant.
5. The District Commission on perusal of the pleadings and the evidence of the both the parties and after hearing their 4 counsels passed the impugned judgment holding that, Mr.Anil Gaikwad fraudulently collected the dishonoured cheque from the respondent. There was a partnership agreement between the appellant and Anil Gaikwad. The partnership later on gets dissolved and the cheques in question were issued for the settlement of their accounts. It is further held by the District Commission that, Anil Gaikwad and the appellant are acting in concert. The have joined the hands. The respondent also filed a complaint with the police alleging that, the respondent and Anil Gaikwad defrauded it. Therefore, the conclusion is drawn by the District Commission that, there are serious allegations of fraud and conspiracy. Therefore, so as to adjudicate the matter on merit detailed examination of the witnesses is required which is not possible under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. Therefore, the District Commission rejected the complaints filed by the appellant with a liberty to file the same before the appropriate Court.
6. We heard Advocates of both sides.
7. Ld. Adv.Ruturaj Patil for the respondent submitted that, the respondent has lodged the police complaint against the appellant and Anil Gaikwad for defrauding it. They joined the hands with each other and making false allegations to prove the deficient service and getting the compensation. The District Commission rightly held that, there is the allegations of the fraud and conspiracy and therefore, the matter could not be dealt with in the summary jurisdiction of the Consumer Commission. There is no error or illegality committed by the District Commission while passing impugned judgment. As 5 against this, ld.Adv.Amarjit Patil submitted that, there is no question of the allegation of the fraud deception or conspiracy. The respondent has committed grave violation as to the banking practices and legal provisions pertaining to the dishonour of the cheques. They handed over the cheques to the drawer illegally. So far as first cheque is concern they have not given the appellant dishonoured cheque as well as cheque return memo, though deducted relevant sum for it. So far as two subsequent cheques are concerned they directly handed over them to the drawer itself. So as to escape from the liability the respondent has falsely lodged police complaint. The District Commission has committed an error in holding that, the allegation needs to be adjudicated in the criminal and civil Court though there was no such need. Therefore, it is prayed by him that, the appeal may kindly be allowed.
8. We have gone through the documents produced by both the parties before District Commission to support their contentions. It appears to us that, the respondent while being persued by the appellant as to the alleged violations of the rules pertaining to the dishonour of the cheques lodged the police complaint on 19.05.2020 . It means that 6 to 7 months after the alleged deficient service by the appellant. It was clearly erroneous for the District Commission to jump to a conclusion merely on the strength of the said police complaint filed by the respondent. On perusal of the pleading to the parties and the evidence filed by them before the District Commission the allegations of deficient service could have been certainly decided by it. As such we hold that, the District Commission has drawn the wrong conclusion that, the allegations of the 6 fraud and conspiracy involved in the matter and therefore, it could not decide it in a summary jurisdiction. It is true that, there are catena of the decisions of the higher courts that, in case of the allegations of fraud deception etc. where there is need to take evidence in volume and question involved in the matter requires detailed trial procedure then only the matter can be referred to the Civil Court. It is not that, in each and every matter the said recourse by the Consumer Commissions is to be taken. The facts of each case are to be evaluated and then such recourse is justified. We do not see any situation which warrants the detail trial in the present matter. There is error and illegality in the impugned judgment. Therefore it will have to be quashed and set aside with a direction that, the matter shall be remanded back to the District Commission for adjudication afresh on the basis of the pleadings and the evidence already filed by the parties before it and give the findings as to whether there is any deficiency in service or not. In the facts and circumstances of the case it will be just to direct that the parties shall bear their own costs. Hence, we pass the following order.
ORDER
1. The impugned judgment passed by the ld. District Commission in C.C.No.102to103 of 2019 is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the District Commission and it shall adjudicate these cases afresh on the basis of pleadings and evidence already filed by the parties before it within a period of three months from the date of this order.
2. Parties to bear their own costs.
73. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs.
N.C.Kumbre M.S.Sonawane
Member Presiding Member
UNK