State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Darshan Singh vs Ludhiana Central Co-Operative Bank ... on 27 April, 2012
2nd Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.471 of 2007.
Date of Institution: 30.03.2007.
Date of Decision: 27.04.2012.
Darshan Singh S/o Sh. Bhag Singh, at present Resident of 222, Salem Tabri,
Ludhiana.
.....Appellant.
Versus
1. Ludhiana Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Branch Office, Salem
Tabri, Ludhiana.
2. Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Punjab, Chandigarh.
...Respondents.
First Appeal against the order dated
19.10.2006 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member.
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Member.
Present:- Sh. Jaideep Verma, Advocate, counsel for the appellant.
Sh. R.K. Sharma, Advocate, counsel for the respondents.
----------------------------------------
INDERJIT KAUSHIK, PRESIDING MEMBER:-
Sh. Darshan Singh, appellant (In short "the appellant") has filed this appeal against the order dated 19.10.2006 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (in short "the District Forum").
2. Facts in brief are that the appellant filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the respondent, making averments that the appellant along with his son Ishwar Singh took Money Multiplier Deposit Certificate (hereinafter called as "the certificate") on 05.08.1999 from respondent no.1 and respondent no.1 acknowledged the receipt of Rs.52,115/- on the certificate with the maturity date as 05.12.2004, with the clear understanding that the maturity amount First Appeal No. 471 of 2007 2 including interest shall be paid on 05.12.2004 with certain terms and conditions printed overleaf the said certificate. One of the conditions was that the payment of the certificate will be made to the depositor only on surrender of the certificate duly discharged.
3. The appellant approached respondent no.1 on 05.12.2004 and made request for the payment of maturity value of the certificate and presented the original certificate, but the respondents refused to make payment and the same amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. The appellant also served a legal notice u/s 79 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, but of no use. The appellant suffered lot of mental tension and harassment. It was prayed that respondent ono.1 be directed to pay maturity value of the certificate along with interest @ 12% p.a. and Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.
4. In the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, preliminary objections were taken that the complaint is barred u/s 26 of the Act. The complaint is not maintainable as the said FDR i.e. certificate was not issued by respondent no.1 in favour of the appellant. The alleged signatory Sh. Rajinderpal Singh was not on duty on the date of issuance of the said certificate, as he was placed under suspension by the respondent bank w.e.f. 25.05.1999 and during this period, he was posted in the head office of the bank at Civil Lines, Ludhiana and was not on the rolls of respondent ono.1, having its branch office at Salem Tabri, Ludhiana on 05.08.1999. The complaint is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties and causes of action.
5. No cash amount of Rs.52,000/- was received by respondent no.1 on 05.08.1999 from the appellant for preparing the certificate, nor the appellant deposited any money on 05.08.1999. Had the money been deposited, then the appellant must have been in possession of the counterfoil of the deposit receipt, but no such document has been placed on record. There is no entry in the account books of respondent no.1 about this deposit, First Appeal No. 471 of 2007 3 which are maintained in the regular course of business. There is no deposit voucher of Rs.52,000/- with respondent no.1, showing the deposit of the amount by the appellant for preparing the said certificate. The said certificate dated 05.08.1999 placed on record is a forged and fabricated document prepared by the appellant and said Rajinderpal Singh. Regarding this fraud, FIR no.46, P.S. Sadar, Ludhiana U/s 409/420/120-B IPC was registered and Sh. Rajinderpal Singh has been dismissed from the service. The complaint is not maintainable.
6. The said certificate is forged and fabricated document, as ledger folio i.e. L/F is mentioned as 71 and account number is mentioned as 276. In fact, as per the bank record, on L/F no.71, there is account no.168 which is in the name of K. Yadwinder Singh under the guardianship of his father Sh. Harchand Singh, Resident of Village Jassian, Post Office Netaji Nagar, Ludhiana and the certificate in favour of K. Yadwinder Singh was issued for Rs.55,400/- and the said account stands closed on 03.04.1998. As per fixed deposit account ledger, account no.276 is in the name of Harbhajan Singh and Harjinder Kaur, his wife, Resident of 375, Nanak Nagar, Salem Tabri, Ludhiana and this account also shows the balance as 'NIL'. There is allegation of forgery and fabrication of the documents and the District Forum has no jurisdiction. Complicated questions of law and facts are involved and the civil court is competent. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.
7. On merits, similar pleas were repeated and denying the allegations of the complaint, it was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs
8. Parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions by way of affidavits and documents.
9. After going through the documents and material placed on file and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum observed that the certificate was issued on 05.08.1999, whereas said First Appeal No. 471 of 2007 4 Rajinderpal Singh was placed under suspension w.e.f. 25.05.1999 and his head quarter was fixed at H.O.C.B., Ludhiana. On 05.08.1999, he was not posted at the branch office, Salem Tabri, Ludhiana. Criminal case has been registered against said Rajinderpal Singh for misappropriating the amount, including this transaction. When a fraud at a large scale has been committed and the criminal case has been registered, the respondents cannot be directed to make the payment when the amount has not been deposited, nor there is any entry in the ledger in respect of this amount, and dismissed the complaint.
10. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 19.10.2006, the appellant has come up in appeal.
11. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, perused the record of the learned District Forum and have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.
12. Certificate Ex.P-4 is dated 05.08.1999 and is signed by Rajinderpal Singh as manager of the Ludhiana Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Branch Office, Salem Tabri, Ludhiana. As per letter Ex.R-13, said Rajinderpal Singh, Senior Clerk, Branch Office, Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana was suspended on 25.05.1999 and his head quarter was to be Head Office, Central Branch, Ludhiana. Once, said Rajinderpal Singh was suspended and was not working with respondent no.1 and FIRs Ex.R-10 and Ex.R-11 have already been registered against him for misappropriation, forgery and cheating, then respondent no.1 bank cannot be held liable for his acts. There is no evidence on record to prove that the payment of Rs.52,115/- was made by the appellant to respondent no.1 bank. No receipt has been produced on record. There is no entry of any deposit in the account books of the bank, which are maintained in the regular course of banking business. Mere production of certificate which is signed by said Rajinderpal Singh as manager is not sufficient to fix the liability of respondent no.1. If the appellant has paid any amount to said Rajinderpal Singh, then it is between Rajinderpal First Appeal No. 471 of 2007 5 Singh and the appellant inter-se and as stated above, the criminal cases have already been registered against him for cheating and forging the documents. The order of the District Forum is legal and valid and there is no ground to interfere with the same.
13. In view of above discussion, the appeal is dismissed and the impugned order dated 19.10.2006 under appeal passed by the District Forum is affirmed and upheld. No order as to costs.
14. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 18.04.2012 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
15. The appeal could not be decided within the stipulated timeframe due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(Inderjit Kaushik) Presiding Member (Piare Lal Garg) Member April 27, 2012.
(Gurmeet S)