State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Renu Goel vs Icici Bank on 30 November, 2023
FA NO./313/2015 D.O.D.: 30.11.2023
RENU GOEL VS BRANCH MANAGER ICICI BANK
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION
Date of Institution:19.06.2015
Date of Hearing:08.11.2023
Date of Decision:30.11.2023
FIRST APPEAL NO.313/2015
IN THE MATTER OF
MS. RENU GOEL
W/O SH. ASHOK KUMAR GOEL
1ST FLOOR, 110-A/4,
SAAFDARJUNG ENCLAVE
NEW DELHI - 110029.
...Appellant
(Through: Mr. Harshit Khurana, Advocate)
VERSUS
THE BRANCH MANAGER
ICICI BANK, A-1/15,
SAFDARJUNG ENCLAVE
NEW DELHI - 110029.
...Respondent
(Through: Mr. P. Kaushik, Advocate)
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
(PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
HON'BLE MR. J.P. AGRAWAL, MEMBER (GENERAL)
Present: Mr. Harshit Khurana, counsel for the Appellant.
Mr. P. Kaushal, counsel for the Respondent.
DISMISSED PAGE 1 OF 9
FA NO./313/2015 D.O.D.: 30.11.2023
RENU GOEL VS BRANCH MANAGER ICICI BANK
PER: HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL,
PRESIDENT
JUDGMENT
1. The facts of the case necessary for adjudication of the present appeal are as under:
"That a Representative of the Respondent ICICI Bank Service Provider Mr. Kamabathula Sudhakar Rao, S/oMr. Karnabathula Rajeshwar Rao was promoting sale of Gold with 20% discount during November, 2012 to the Account holders of Respondent Bank and persuaded for purchase of Gold by the Complainant. The Representative of the Respondent Sudhakar asked for the Cheque Number for the intended purchase of Gold with 20% discount from Respondent on the pretext of blocking money in the Account of the Complainant for blocking Gold for Sale along with details of Branch of ICICI Bank and Account Number. That the Cheque Number 098887 and Account Number 002901033222 in Safdarjung Enclave Branch, Delhi were disclosed to the Representative of the Respondent Sudhakar in good faith for blocking the money in the Account of the Complainant only for the intended purchase of Gold at 20% discount from Respondent. Cheque in favour of ICICI Bank was handed over to the Respondent by the Complainant. The Respondent withdrew Rs. 3,33,021/- without presentation of Cheque from the account of the Complainant on 10.11.12, while the Complainant was in Delhi This unauthorised withdrawal was reported to the Chairman of the Respondent and a theft of Rs. 3,33,021/- was reported to Ms. Rashmi Fauzdar, Banking Ombudsman, Reserve Bank of India, Delhi in Complaint No. 201213014008401 on 16.5.13. Mr. Ramesh Somisetty, Chief Manager-Service Quality. ICICI Bank on DISMISSED PAGE 2 OF 9 FA NO./313/2015 D.O.D.: 30.11.2023 RENU GOEL VS BRANCH MANAGER ICICI BANK registration of Complaint by BO hatched a conspiracy and alleged vide Letter No. CSQG/005-744-532/2013- 14 Dated 26.6.13 that the Gold has been handed over to son of the Complainant Mr. Amit Goel and converted theft into dacoity. The Chairman of the Respondent Bank was requested to send complete details of Service Request, Procedures and Rules followed in above transactions with all the Documents but Respondent never responded and therefore FIR No. 181 of 2013 was registered in the Economic Offence Wing of Delhi Police for Breach of Trust on 25.7.13. The Respondent detected Fraud on 12.8.13 but did not inform the Complainant, Banking Ombudsman and Delhi Police. The Respondent admitted Fraud on 2.9.13 in Contents of FMS No. 15211. Representative of Respondent Sudhakar did not cooperate in the Investigations by the Respondent. In addition to this, the Respondent Bank withdrew money from the Account Nos. 625301221527 and 003901074365 Sh. Amit Goel, son of the complainant without presentation of cheques and did not deliver Gold. The Respondent Bank initiated action to restore the stolen money much before the Order of BO Dated 25.9.13 was received by the Complainant. Complainant objected for indemnity Bond to the Banking Ombudsman. Banking Ombudsman confirmed vide E mail Dated 13.9.13 that she is obeying INTERNAL PROCEDURE of the Respondent. E Mail is attached as Annexure-3, therefore Complainant waited for Orders of BO. The amount of the Compensation applied was modified vide Letter Dated 23.8.13 to be within the authority of Banking Ombudsman but BO closed the Complaint as beyond her competence on 25.9.13 under Clause 13 [b] of Banking Ombudsman Scheme Ignoring the submission Dated 23.8.13.
That Respondent admitted Fraud to Reserve Bank of India on
2.9.13 but inspite of acceptance of Fraud by Respondent BO DISMISSED PAGE 3 OF 9 FA NO./313/2015 D.O.D.: 30.11.2023 RENU GOEL VS BRANCH MANAGER ICICI BANK did not allow Penal Interest and Compensation in Order Dated 25.9.13 and ordered the Complainant to execute indemnity in favour of Respondent without any reason and request from the Respondent on her own. BO ordered the Complainant to execute Indemnity Bond on 25.9.13 after admission of Fraud by the Respondent on 2.9.13 and 6.9.13. Complainant did not have any other option but to execute the Bond after the Orders of BO for early restoration of stolen money. That Respondent did not provide copy of the Indemnity Bond. After a lot of efforts copy of the Bond was sent by Respondent on 12.3.14 after more than 5 months of execution of Bond. Respondent while sending copy of the Bond confirmed that they never asked for Bond. This confirms doubtful integrity of BO who ordered execution of Indemnity Band in favour of Respondent and did not Order Penal Interest and Compensation and closed the Complaint. Respondent sent wrong information and misguided BO. BO transferred the Complaint No. 201213014008413 of Sh. Amit Goel to BO, Bangalore who did not have any jurisdiction on the Complaint and attached copies of Forged Receipts of Gold BO, Banglore closed the Complaint without jurisdiction.
BO defied the Orders of the Governor, RBI dated 23.8.13 attached as Annexure-5 and did not take any action on the Complaint Dated 5.8.13 of Sh.Amit Goel. The Respondent compared and divulged information of the Personal account of the Complainant to Conspirator Representative in Fraud Mr. Karhula Suthakar. Respondent has caused Loss of Reputation, humiliation, harassment, defamation etc/ and insulted and defamed by charging for extraction of money which can never be compensated."
DISMISSED PAGE 4 OF 9
FA NO./313/2015 D.O.D.: 30.11.2023
RENU GOEL VS BRANCH MANAGER ICICI BANK
2. The District Commission after taking into consideration the material available on record dismissed the complaint in limine vide order dated 22.12.2016. The order reads as under:
"We have gone through the complaint and the documents.
Questions involved in the complaint require decision of complicated questions of facts and law. Evidence, both oral and documentary, has to be recorded. Allegations of fraud have been made against the OPs. An FIR has also been stated to have been registered at P.S. EOW of Delhi Police for breach of trust on 25.07.13 against the OPs.
Therefore, these questions alongwith other questions cannot be decided in summary procedure trial which is held under the Consumer Protection Act.
Therefore, the Complainant should approach the appropriate Forum including the Civil Court if she is so advised for redressal of her grievances. The present complaint is accordingly dismissed in limine. Copy of this order be given dasti to the husband of the Complainant. File be consigned to record room."
3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Appellant has filed the present appeal inter alia contending that the District Commission failed to appreciate that the present case does not involve any complicated question of law and fact and no evidence in the said manner is required to be recorded; that there is violation of RBI circular dated 01.07.2009 and Code of Bank's Commitment to customer, January, 2014 of the Respondent Bank, that the DISMISSED PAGE 5 OF 9 FA NO./313/2015 D.O.D.: 30.11.2023 RENU GOEL VS BRANCH MANAGER ICICI BANK Respondent Bank has already admitted fraud in contents of FMS No.15211 reported to Reserve Bank of India on 02.09.2013; that the Respondent has malfidely and with dishonest intention leaked the bank statement of the Appellant; that Respondent admitted numerous other frauds also and filed FIR No.35/2014 in Begumpet, Police Station, Hyderabad and that the Respondent is grossly deficient in service and is indulging in unfair trade practices.
4. No reply to the appeal has been filed by the Respondent Bank despite opportunities. However, the Respondent has filed its written arguments on 25.07.2023.
5. We have perused the Appeal, the District Forum Record and the impugned order.
6. It is submitted by the Appellant that the employees of the Respondent i.e. Mr. Sudhakar and Harshvardhan have filed a criminal complaint against the Appellant and her family members wherein the bank statements of the Appellant are attached and on the basis of the said complaint an FIR has also been registered. Thus, there is violation of Para 25 of RBI circular. It is further stated that the Respondent has leaked the bank statement of the Appellant which is in clear violation of confidence between the bank and its customer and amounts to unfair trade practice.
DISMISSED PAGE 6 OF 9
FA NO./313/2015 D.O.D.: 30.11.2023
RENU GOEL VS BRANCH MANAGER ICICI BANK
7. Perusal of record shows that an FIR bearing No.181/2013 was registered in the Economic Offences Wing, Delhi Police for breach of trust on 25.07.2013 Further, an FIR bearing No.494/2014 has also been registered against the Appellant and her family members on the complaint of Mr. Sudhakar Rao and Mr. Harshavardhan and quashing petition is also pending before the Hon'ble High Court at Hyderabad.
8. Further, the counsel for the Respondent has brought to our notice orders passed by this Commission in the complaints filed by the family members of the Appellant bearing CC No.299/2016 and CC No.285/2015. We have perused the said orders wherein the said complaints were dismissed vide orders dated 22.04.2016 by observing that "Any how the plea of the OP that this Commission is not a proper forum for deciding the controversy of fraud, forgery and cheating appears to be tenable. Counsel for OP has relied upon decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Trai Foods Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Company II (2012) CPJ 17 SC where it was held that controversy could not be resolved in summary manner without recording elaborate evidence. Consumer Forum has been set up to grant speedy remedy. Having regard to the nature of claim, large amount of damages claimed and expenses, inquiry into evidence which would be necessary in order to resolve disputes between parties. This is not a matter to be decided summarily at all.
In MSTC Ltd. Vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corpn. Of India Ltd. II (2014) CPJ 453 NC held that where claim of recovery of insured sum was repudiated and CBI was investigating, DISMISSED PAGE 7 OF 9 FA NO./313/2015 D.O.D.: 30.11.2023 RENU GOEL VS BRANCH MANAGER ICICI BANK Commission is not required to record statement of witnesses in summary procedure. It is a duty cast on Civil Court to record evidence exclusively and extensively.
In UCO Bank vs. S.D, Wadhawa III (2013) CPJ 523 NC held that question of fraudulent withdrawal from Bank involves complicated and complex question which require elaborate evidence. Dispute not adjudicable in summary procedure and complaint is not maintainable.
In Safe Home Developers and Contractors vs. Samata Sahankari Bank Ltd. IV (2012) CPJ 729 NC it was held that perusal of pleadings reveal that forgery/ genuineness of cheque was in issue which involves complicated question of facts and law and involves lot of evidence and detailed inquiry, which cannot be decided in a summary way. Complaint was returned to approach Civil Court or any other Forum.
In Shirish S. Kirtikar vs. State Bank of Patiala IV (2015) CPJ 154 NC it was held that there is a discrepancy in several accounts and plea of forged signature, Consumer Fora is not appropriate Forum for effectual adjudication raised in complaint. Issue could not be decided in summary proceedings. Complaint was not maintainable.
In view of the above discussion we find that this Commission is not a proper forum for deciding the controversy. The complaint is dismissed with liberty to the complainant to approach Civil Court or any other Forum for redressal of the remedy after excluding the time spent in the present proceedings as per law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engg. Works vs. PSG Industrial Institution II (1995) CPJ 1 and Birla Technology vs. Natural Gas and Allied Industries (2011) 1 SCC
525."
DISMISSED PAGE 8 OF 9
FA NO./313/2015 D.O.D.: 30.11.2023
RENU GOEL VS BRANCH MANAGER ICICI BANK
9. From the facts of the present case, it is apparent that the case involves controversy of fraud, forgery and cheating, which constitutes offences, as defined under the Indian Penal Code. Even before this Commission, the Appellant is placing reliance on the aforesaid pleading only.
10. Having regard to the facts of the case and the legal position having been explained, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed.
11. Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
12. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.
13. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Judgment. Record of the District Commission be returned forthwith.
(JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL) PRESIDENT (PINKI) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) (J.P. AGRAWAL) MEMBER (GENERAL) DISMISSED PAGE 9 OF 9