State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Parveen Kumar Jain vs Hdfc Bank Ltd. on 2 May, 2017
Daily Order IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL, COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Arguments : 02.05.2017 Date of Decision : 29.05.2017 Appeal No. 176/2017 (Arising out of the order dated 27.02.2017 passed in Complaint Case No. 407/2014 by the District Consumer Redressal Forum-East IN THE MATTER OF: Parveen Kumar Jain, F-100, West Jawahar Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092. ........Complainant VERSUS HDFC Bank Ltd., 1-3, Laxmi Deep Building, District Center, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092. ..........Opp. Party CORAM SH. O. P. GUPTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) SH. ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER
1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes/No Present : Appellant in person.
PER : SHRI ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER Aggrieved by the orders dated 27.02.2017 passed by the District Forum-East dismissing the complaint No.407/14 filed by Sh. Parveen Kumar Jain, complainant before the District and appellant before this Commission, on the ground that issues involved in the case are of criminal in nature which cannot be entertained by this Commission.
Facts of the case are these.
The complainant is in possession of Credit Card issued by HDFC Bank Ltd., hereinafter referred to as OP, and on 30.05.2014 between 12:42 to 12:56 night card was used and multiple transaction were done worth Rs.24,000/-. The bank sought the confirmation from the complainant whether transactions have been done by him to which he replied in negative.
On 31.03.2014 on the advice of the OP, he had filed complaint to the Police Authorities as also submitted three days after, Progressive Dispute Form as required. The complainant made request to the OP that he not having done any transaction cannot be subject any loss and mental harassment.
The District Forum after hearing the arguments on behalf of complainant as also of the OP and on perusal of the material on record held that when the complaint involves the question of fraud, disputed question of entries it requires proper investigation and trial which cannot be done in the summary proceedings on the basis of affidavit filed under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. On these ground the Ld. District Forum dismissed the complaint holding that the subject requires proper investigation of criminal trial.
We have heard the complainant in person and perused the record. We are completely in agreement with the order passed by the District Forum that issues involving dispute of a criminal nature cannot be gone into under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 under summary trial.
Hon'ble NCDRC in the matters of Bright Transport Co. Vs Sangli Sahakari Bank Ltd. II [2012] CPJ 151 (NC) decided on 12.01.2012 and in Prempreet Textiles Industries Ltd. Vs. Bank of Baroda III [2006] CPJ 218 (NC) decided on 15.05.2016 and Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Synco Industries Vs. State Bank of India, AIR 2002 SC 568 have held that complicated question of law involved cannot be decided in summary proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Having regard of the case we are of the considered view that there is no infirmity in the order passed by District Forum and uphold that.
Copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost as contemplated under the Consumer Protection Rules 1987 read with Consumer Protection Regulations 2005. File be consigned to Record Room.
(ANIL SRIVASTAVA) (O.P. GUPTA) MEMBER MEMBER (JUDICIAL)