National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Sagar Polymers vs State Bank Of India And Anr. on 5 December, 2002
ORDER
J.K. Mehra, J. (Member)
1. This Opposite Party is filed against the against the State Bank of India and Mr. Pramesh J. Sanghvi. The facts in brief which lead the Complainant approach this Commission are as under:
2. The Complainant herein is a registered partnership firm having six partners. It has got a Current Account with the Opposite Party No. 1, State Bank of India and the said account is to be operated under the signature of any one of its three partners, namely, Mr. Ajay Gulabrai Gandhi or Shri Pradeep Gulabrai Gandhi or Shri Gulabrai Vrajdas Gandhi. The Complainant is required to pay excise duty on the excisiable goods manufactured by it. As the Excise Department has the bank account with Dena Bank, cheques are issued by the Complainant in the name of the Dena bank of the amount of excise duty and the said cheques were account payee cheques. It is contended by the Complainant in the complaint that the cheques issued for payment of excise duty were forged and misappropriated by the Opposite Party No. 2, the employee of the Opposite Party No. 1, i.e. the State Bank of India. On investigation, the Police found that the words written on the cheques "Dena Bank" were replaced by the Opposite Party No. 2 by the words "Self", or name of his own or his wife or Yash Enterprises, in around 26 cheques and forged the signature of Mr. P.G. Gandhi. The Complainant also contends that the Opposite Party No. 2 also withdrew Rs. 3,25,000/- by making amendments made to the cheque which was issued for an amount of Rs. 25,000/- by prefixing the digit '3' before the amount of Rs. 25,000. It is also brought to our notice that the Complainant had lodged a criminal complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Daman and the investigations are going on and the matter is pending. The Complainant states that it had brought these facts to the notice of Opposite Party No. 1 and asked the Opposite Party No. 1 to credit the amount wrongly withdrawn by its employee with interest @ 18%. As there was no satisfactory response from it and feeling dissatisfied with the attitude the Opposite Party No. 1, the Complainant has approached this Commission praying for the following reliefs:
(a) The Opposite Party No. 1 be directed to pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs. 28 lakhs along with interest thereon @ 18% p.a. compounded quarterly from the date of debit for each of the cheque to the account of the Complainant till the date of institution of the present complaint and further interest thereon from the date of institution of complaint till actual payment;
(b) Costs of and relating to the present complaint be awarded in favour of the Complainant and against the Opposite Party No. 1; and
(c) Such other further relief(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case be granted.
3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the Complainant. We have also gone through the complaint along with the various annexures filed with the complaint. In our opinion the matter involves determination of detailed facts which cannot be established except on a detailed evidence, both oral and documentary, as to where any fraud, forgery, etc. were played by the Opposite Parties. This is a time consuming process and it is not a case to be heard and disposed of in a summary fashion within the limited time specified by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In this connection it is pertinent to mention here the views of the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with such cases in Synce Industries v. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur and Ors. reported as 2002 (1) SCALE.
"Given the nature of the claim in the complaint and the prayer for damages in the sum of Rupees fifteen crores and for an additional sum of Rupees sixty lakhs for covering the cost of travelling and other expenses incurred by the Appellant, it is obvious that very detailed evidence would have to be led, both to prove claim and thereafter to prove the damages and expenses. It is, therefore, in any event, not an appropriate case to be heard and dispose of in a summary fashion. The National Commission was right in giving to the Appellant liberty to move the civil court. This is an appropriate claim for a civil court to decide and, obviously, was not filed before a civil court to start with because, before the consumer forum, and figure in damages can be claimed without having to pay court fees. This, in the sense, is an abuse of the process of the Consumer Forum".
4. In the light of the above, the Complainant should seek his remedy in a civil court.
5. On the point of limitation, it will be open to the Complainant to move the civil court under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for exclusion of time spent in the present proceedings. In this connection Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Engineering Works v. PSG Industrial Institute (1995) 3 SCC 583, has held as under:
"If the Appellate chooses to file a suit for the relief claimed in these proceedings, he can do so according to law and in such a case he can claim the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act to exclude the period spent in prosecution the proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, while computing the period of limitation prescribed for such a suit".
6. In the light of what is observed hereinabove, this complaint is dismissed without prejudice to the Complainant's rights to approach civil court or any other appropriate forum.