National Consumer Disputes Redressal
P.N. Khanna vs Bank Of India & Anr. on 29 January, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 9 OF 2015 (Against the order dated 31.10.2014 in Consumer Complt. No. 103 of 2014 of State Commission, UT Chandigarh) P.N. Khanna S/o Sh. A.N. Khanna 652, Sector-8, Panchkula (Haryana). Appellant/Complainant Versus 1. M/s. Bank of India SCF No. 9 Sector-20 C Chandigarh Through its Chief Manager. 2. M/s. Bank of India Through its Chairman & Managing Director Head Office at Bandra- Kurla Complex, Bandra ( E) Mumbai. Respondents/Opp. Party(s) BEFORE : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER For the Appellant : Shri Pankaj Chandgothia, Advocate Pronounced on 29th January, 2015 ORDER
PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER
1. This appeal has been filed by appellant against order dated 31.10.2014 passed by State Commission in complaint No. 103 of 2014 P.N. -2- Khanna Vs. Bank of India & Anr., by which complaint was dismissed and complainant was given liberty to approach Civil Court for redressal of his grievances.
2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/ appellant had one account with opposite party/ respondent and one account with Allahabad Bank. He filled cheque No. 839595 of Allahabad Bank in his name for Rs. 8,16,000/- and handed over the cheque to Officer of the opposite party for clearance, who in turn called his peon Rajiv Kumar and got the cheque dropped in the drop box and counter slip was given to the complainant. Amount of this cheque was not credited in his account and on enquiry from Allahabad Bank, he came to know that the cheque has been cleared for Rs. 28,16,000/- and has been credited in the name of one Satnam Singh in State Bank of India. Alleging deficiency on the part of opposite party, complainant filed complaint before the State Commission. Opposite party resisted complaint and submitted that cheque dropped in the drop box was not found and report was lodged to the Police and investigation is pending. It was further, submitted that cheque was forged by Satnam Singh and got it collected through State Bank of India against KYC norms. Complainant has not impleaded Allahabad Bank, State Bank of India and Satnam Singh as party, hence, complaint was not maintainable and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned State Commission after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint as referred above, against which this appeal has been filed.
3. Heard Learned Counsel for appellant and perused record.
-3-4. Learned Counsel for appellant submitted that in spite of proof of deficiency on the part of respondent, Learned State Commission committed error in dismissing complaint, hence, appeal be allowed and impugned order be set aside and matter may be remanded back for disposal on merits.
5. Perusal of record reveals that as per complainant, his cheque for Rs.
8,16,000/- was dropped in the drop box which was later on stolen by some person and after forgery, amount of Rs. 28,16,000/- was credited in the name of Satnam Singh in State Bank of India. Admittedly, complainant has not impleaded Allahabad Bank, State Bank of India and Satnam Singh as opposite parties in the complaint and criminal investigation is also pending in the matter. As there are allegations of theft, forgery and clearance of forged cheque by the Bank, Learned State Commission rightly dismissed complaint and directed complainant to approach Civil Court for redressal of his grievances.
6. Learned State Commission rightly observed as under:-
In Bright Transport Company Vs. Sangli Sahakari Bank Ltd., II (2012) CPJ 151 (NC), it was held by the National Commission that the complaints which are based on the allegations of fraud, forgery, etc. and trial of which would require the leading of voluminous evidence and consideration thereof cannot be entertained by the Consumer Fora. In Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Munimahesh Patel 2006 (2) CPC 668 (SC), decided by the Honble Apex Court; Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., I (1998) CPJ 13, a case decided by a four Member Bench of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi and M/s. Singhal Swaroop Ispat Ltd. Vs. United Commercial Bank III (1992) CPJ 50, a case decided by a three member Bench of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi it was held that when -4- there are allegations of forgery, fraud and cheating, adjudication whereof, requires elaborate evidence, the same cannot be decided, by a Consumer Fora, proceedings before which, are summary in nature.
7. In the light of aforesaid observation and judgments, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and appeal filed by the appellant is liable to be dismissed in limini at admission stage.
8. Consequently, appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.
-sd/-
..
( K.S. CHAUDHARI, J. ) PRESIDING MEMBER Mk/court4/