State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Nand Kishore Pathak vs Icici Bank Ltd. on 5 October, 2018
Daily Order M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL FIRST APPEAL NO. 760 OF 2015 (Arising out of order dated 22.05.2015 passed in C.C.No.44/2014 by District Forum, Chhatarpur) NANDKISHORE PATHAK, S/O SHRI THAKUR PRASAD PATHAK, R/O VILLAGE-BARA, TEHSIL-RAJNAGAR, DISTRICT-CHHATARPUR (M.P.) .... APPELLANT. Versus 1. ICICI BANK, CHHATARPUR BRANCH-CHHATARPUR (M.P.) 2. ICICI BANK, ICICI BANK TOWER, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, MUMBAI-400051. .... RESPONDENTS. BEFORE : HON'BLE SHRI S. D. AGARWAL : PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK : MEMBER COUNSEL FOR PARTIES : Shri Yash Vidyarthi, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Amit Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents. O R D E R (Passed On 05.10.2018)
The following order of the Commission was delivered by Dr. (Mrs) Monika Malik, Member:
This appeal is by the complainant/appellant, against the order dated 22.05.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chhatarpur in C.C.No. 44/2014, whereby the complaint filed by him, has been dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case as narrated by the complainant are that, he had opened savings bank account no.042601504454 in the opposite party bank on 11.06.2012 and had deposited an amount of Rs.9,49,999/-, regarding which a statement was supplied by the opposite party. The complainant alleged that an employee of the bank along with Branch Manager had withdrawn Rs.9,49,000/- from the said account on 06.09.2012. The account opening form submitted by the complainant along with other particulars was altered, in order to misappropriate the money of the complainant. The complainant lodged a police complaint in this regard and the opposite party bank had accepted that their employee had misappropriated -2- the said amount. The complainant requested the opposite party bank to make payment of unauthorized withdrawn amount, but the bank failed to make any such payment. Aggrieved complainant, approached the District Forum and filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on opposite party's part.
3. The opposite parties appeared before the District Forum and submitted an application under Order 7 Rule11 CPC stating that allegations of fraud and cheating have been made against them by the complainant. The complainant himself has failed to prove his title over the said money. The matter requires elaborate evidence and such cases cannot be decided by the Consumer Foras enacted under the Consumer Protection Act.
4. The District Forum after hearing both the parties on opposite parties application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant, holding that the complainant has made allegations of fraud and forgery against the opposite parties. In the facts and circumstances of the matter, there is no consumer dispute in the case involved. Further the matter requires detailed investigation and elaborate evidence and therefore cannot be tried in summary proceedings of the Consumer Protection Act. The District Forum dismissed the complaint with a liberty to approach alternate remedy.
5. Heard learned counsels for parties. Perused the record.
6. Learned counsel for complainant/appellant argued that since the complainant/appellant has savings bank account in the opposite party/respondent bank, he is their consumer. Further, the complaint filed by the complainant was admitted on account of deficiency in service committed by the opposite party/respondent bank. The opposite party/respondent bank ought to have filed their reply which could highlight the facts of the case. However, rather they filed an application raising preliminary objections. The District Forum further committed error by allowing the application and dismissing the complaint on the basis of this -3- application only. At least, the opposite parties/respondents should have been ordered to file their reply, which could clarify the matter. He argued that the District Forum could have disposed of the matter on its merits. Learned counsel gave reference to judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CCI Chambers Co-op Housing Society Ltd Vs Development Credit Bank Ltd AIR 2004 SC 184 & Punj Lloyd Ltd Vs Corporate Risks India Pvt. Ltd. AIR 2008 SC (Supp) 803 and the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble National Commission in Sutlez Textile And Industries Ltd Vs Punjab National Bank I (2010) CPJ 312 (NC) & Sarita Devi Prakashchand Jain Vs Ramchandra Shambu Chaudhari & Anr II (2015) CPJ 462 (NC) in order to substantiate his submission.
7. Learned counsel for opposite parties/respondents argued that the complainant/appellant has levelled allegations against the opposite parties of committing fraud and forgery and therefore this dispute is not a consumer dispute. The matter requires detailed evidence and cannot be tried in the Consumer Fora. Since the case was not maintainable before the District Forum, therefore there was no point in filing reply to the complaint. The District Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint.
8. We observe that the complainant/appellant has alleged that the opposite parties/respondents have misappropriated the money from the complainant's/appellant's bank account. The District Forum admitted the complaint and notice was issued to the opposite parties/respondents. The least which could have been done was that the reply along with documents and supporting evidence of opposite parties/respondents would have been taken on record. The matter requires detailed investigation or elaborate evidence, could have been decided later. Power vested under Section 13(4) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, could be availed to decide the pedestal of the matter. As specified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CCI Chambers Co-op Housing Society Ltd Vs Development Credit Bank Ltd "Only when the pleadings for both parties were available should the -4- Commission have formed an opinion as to the nature and scope of enquiry, i.e., whether the questions arising for decision in the light of the pleadings of the parties required a detailed and complicated investigation into the facts which was incapable of being undertaken in a summary and speedy manner. Then the Commission could have justifiably formed an opinion on the need away the complainant to the Civil Court." Similar principle has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Punj Lloyd Ltd. Vs Corporate Risks India Pvt. Ltd.
9. We are of the considered view that it is not appropriate on the part of the District Forum to relegate the matter to the recourse of alternate remedy. In this view of the matter, we conclude that the case shall be remanded back to the District Forum. The order of the District Forum is set-aside and this appeal is allowed. Parties are directed to appear before the Forum on 12.11.2018. On that date, the opposite parties/respondents shall file reply to the complaint before the District Forum. The District Forum shall proceed with the matter in accordance with law. However, no order as to costs.
(S. D. AGARWAL) (DR. MRS MONIKA MALIK) PRESIDING MEMBER MEMBER