State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Punjab National Bank vs Manish Agarwal on 17 March, 2016
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 163 / 2013
1. Punjab National Bank
A Corporate Body having its Head Office at
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi
having various Branches and Office
One of its Branch at I.I.T., Roorkee
District Haridwar through Senior Manager Sh. Rajkumar
2. Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank
Regional Office, Sector - IV
Haridwar
......Appellants / Opposite Parties
Versus
Sh. Manish Agarwal
Partner, Computer Home
Satshila Complex, New Haridwar Road
Roorkee, District Haridwar
......Respondent / Complainant
Sh. Vijai Kumar Gupta, Learned Counsel for the Appellants
Sh. Sudhanshu Dwivedi, Learned Counsel for Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.S. Verma, President
Mr. D.K. Tyagi, H.J.S., Member
Mrs. Veena Sharma, Member
Dated: 17/03/2016
ORDER
Per: Justice B.S. Verma, President (Oral):
This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against the order dated 15.05.2013 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 44 of 2012.
2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the appeal are that Computer Home, a Partnership Firm, of which Sh. Manish Agarwal is one of the partners, is having a current account 2 No. 4044002100001749 with Punjab National Bank, I.I.T., Roorkee. It was alleged that on 03.12.2011, sum of Rs. 95,000/- was withdrawn from the said account by some unknown person by use of forged cheque. The intimation regarding withdrawal of amount was received by the complainant on his mobile, whereupon he contacted the bank and stated that he had not issued cheque of Rs. 95,000/- in favour of anyone. On inquiry by the bank, it was revealed that the said amount has been withdrawn from Kitcha Branch of the bank and the said person has also tried to withdraw Rs. 85,000/- from the account of the complainant through Kitcha Branch of the bank on 05.12.2011, but he was not successful and was caught and was put behind the bars. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the bank on account of permitting illegal withdrawal of Rs. 95,000/- from the account, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar.
3. The appellants - opposite parties did not appear before the District Forum and, as such, the District Forum vide order dated 16.01.2013 proceeded the consumer complaint ex-parte against them.
4. The District Forum after perusal of the evidence on record, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order 15.05.2013, thereby directing the appellants - opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the respondent - complainant within a period of one month from the date of the order. Aggrieved, the bank has filed the present appeal.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the appellants - bank has contended that since the current account in question pertain to the partnership firm and the complainant has filed the consumer complaint in the 3 capacity of partner of the said firm and hence the complainant can not be termed as consumer and the consumer complaint was not maintainable before the Consumer Fora and the District Forum has erred in admitting the consumer complaint and deciding the same on merit. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellants
- bank cited a decision dated 20.01.2016 of the Hon'ble National Commission in Revision Petition No. 1085 of 2015; Sathya Sai Agencies Vs. Punjab National Bank and others. In the said case, the complainant - M/s Sathya Sai Agencies, a partnership firm through its partner filed a consumer complaint against the bank, alleging deficiency in service in respect of payment made by the bank in pursuance to an expired cheque. It was held that the complainant is not a consumer. Learned counsel also cited another decision dated 10.04.2015 of the Hon'ble National Commission in Consumer Case No. 168 of 2009; M/s Edit II Productions Vs. Standard Chartered Bank Limited. It was held that the complainant being a partnership concern engaged in production of TV serials, is not a consumer and has no locus standi to maintain the consumer complaint. Learned counsel further cited decision dated 25.07.2013 of the Hon'ble National Commission in Revision Petition No. 2479 of 2008; UCO Bank Vs. S.D. Wadhawa. The said case pertain to fraudulent withdrawal of amount by forging signatures of the complainant. It was held that the complaint regarding fraudulent withdrawal from the account on the basis of forged cheque involves complicated and complex questions which require elaborate evidence and hence the dispute is not adjudicable in summary jurisdiction. Learned counsel cited one more decision dated 05.05.2015 of the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Union Bank of India Vs. Ramayan Yadav and another; [2015] 2 CPR (NC) 838. The said case pertain to release of bank guarantee by the bank. It was held that since the services of the bank were obtained for commercial purpose and, as 4 such, the partnership firm or its partners can not be termed as consumer as envisaged under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It was further held that the consumer complaint could be maintained only in the name of partnership firm and not in personal name of the complainant and the consumer complaint by the complainant in his personal capacity was not maintainable.
6. In view of above law, the consumer complaint filed by the complainant was not at all maintainable and the District Forum has erred in admitting the same and deciding it on merit by the order impugned. The facts of the present case are identical to the case of UCO Bank (supra), as in the present case too, the matter pertains to withdrawal of amount from the account by forging a cheque and, as such, the matter is to be decided by the competent court of civil jurisdiction. Thus, the order impugned passed by the District Forum is not legally sustainable and is liable to be set aside. Consequently, the appeal is fit to be allowed.
7. Appeal is allowed. Order impugned dated 15.05.2013 passed by the District Forum is set aside and consumer complaint No. 44 of 2012 is dismissed. However, the respondent - complainant is granted liberty to pursue his remedy before the competent court of civil jurisdiction in regard to the matter in issue. The statutory amount of Rs. 25,000/- deposited by the appellants at the time of filing the appeal, be released in their favour. No order as to costs.
(MRS. VEENA SHARMA) (D.K. TYAGI) (JUSTICE B.S. VERMA) K