State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sh. Manish Kumar. vs Himachal Gramin Bank. & Anr. on 21 June, 2019
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
SHIMLA.
Consumer Complaint No.: 14/2017
Date of Presentation: 30.08.2017
Order reserved on : 25.03.2019
Date of Order : 21.06.2019
.......................................................................................
Manish Kumar son of Shri Karam Chand resident of Village
Gholowal P.O. Kalibari Tehsil Nalagarh District Solan H.P.
....Complainant
Versus
1. Himachal Gramin Bank Branch Nalagarh Tehsil Nalagarh
District Solan H.P. through its Branch Manager.
2. Amarjeet Singh son of Shri Ram Singh Prop. Himachal
Traders R/o Sanerh P.O. Bhatian Tehsil Nalagarh District
Solan H.P.
....Opposite parties
...............................................................................................
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.S. Rana (R) President.
Hon'ble Mr. Vijay Pal Khachi Member.
Hon'ble Ms. Sunita Sharma Member.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes
For the Complainant : Ms. Parul Verma Advocate.
For the Opposite Party No.1 : Mr. Rakesh Thakur Advocate.
For opposite party No.2: None despite service.
.......................................................................................
O R D E R:
Justice P.S. Rana (R) President
1. Present consumer complaint is filed under section 17 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 pleaded therein that complainant is unemployed and complainant 1 Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? Yes Manish Kumar Versus Himachal Gramin Bank & Anr. C.C. No.14/2017 obtained loan from opposite party No.1 to the tune of Rs.2000000/-(Twenty lac) for installation of retreating tyres plant and preparing cattle feed and animal feed unit. It is pleaded that opposite parties in collusion with each other played fraud with the complainant and did not disburse loan amount to the tune of Rs.2000000/-(Twenty lac) to complainant factually and only loan amount was paid in papers. It is pleaded that opposite parties opened false forged bank account and also formed false firms and cheated complainant. It is further pleaded that opposite parties committed deficiency in service. Complainant sought relief of payment of rupees ten lac as compensation for deficiency in service. In addition complainant sought relief of payment of rupees ten lac for mental agony and harassment. In addition complainant sought relief of payment of Rs.50000/-(Fifty thousand) as litigation costs. Prayer for acceptance of consumer complaint sought.
2. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite party No.1 pleaded therein that complainant has no cause of action against opposite party No.1 and complainant is estopped to file present consumer complaint on account of his own act, conduct and deed. It is pleaded that complainant has leveled false allegations against Sh. Rajpal Singh then Manager and Sh. Rajpal Singh then Manager 2 Manish Kumar Versus Himachal Gramin Bank & Anr. C.C. No.14/2017 has not been impleaded as co-party in the present consumer complaint. It is further pleaded that consumer complaint is barred by limitation and complainant has suppressed the material facts from learned District Forum. It is pleaded that complainant has no locus standi to file the present consumer complaint. It is further pleaded that complainant did not pay installment of loan amount and loan amount of Rs.3301733/-(Thirty three lac one thousand seven hundred thirty three) is due from complainant to opposite party No.1. It is pleaded that opposite party No.1 has filed recovery of loan application before Debt Recovery Tribunal Chandigarh. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought.
3. Per contra separate version filed on behalf of opposite party No.2 pleaded therein that consumer complaint is not maintainable against opposite party No.2 and complainant has no cause of action against opposite party No.2. It is pleaded that complainant did not avail any service of opposite party No.2 and consumer complaint is not maintainable. It is further pleaded that complainant is estopped from filing present consumer complaint due to his own act, conduct and deed. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought.
3
Manish Kumar Versus Himachal Gramin Bank & Anr. C.C. No.14/2017
4. Complainant also filed rejoinder and reasserted allegation mentioned in consumer complaint. We have heard learned Advocates appearing on behalf of parties and we have also perused entire record carefully.
5. Following points arise for determination in present consumer complaint.
1. Whether it is expedient in the ends of justice and on the principle of natural justice to decide allegation of forgery of loan documents under Consumer Protection Act 1986 and whether it is expedient in the ends of justice and on the principle of natural justice to adjudicate settlement of accounts dispute inter se parties under Consumer Protection Act 1986?
2. Final order.
Findings upon point No.1 with reasons:
6. Complainant filed affidavit Ext.CI in evidence.
There is recital in affidavit that deponent is unemployed and deponent obtained loan from opposite party No.1 to the tune of Rs.2000000/-(Twenty lac) and also mortgaged his property. There is recital in affidavit that opposite parties did not pay loan amount to deponent factually and loan amount was shown only in papers. There is recital in affidavit that opposite parties committed forgery of loan documents with deponent. There is further recital in affidavit that FIR No.171/2014 dated 13.08.2014 under section 420, 34 of IPC also registered against opposite 4 Manish Kumar Versus Himachal Gramin Bank & Anr. C.C. No.14/2017 parties. There is recital in affidavit that opposite party No.1 did not disburse any loan amount to complainant till date factually. State Commission has carefully perused all the annexures filed by complainant.
7. Opposite party No.1 filed affidavit of Sh. Abhay Singh Assistant Manager Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank Ext.OP-I in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that complainant has levelled personal false allegation against Shri Rajpal Singh then Manager without impleading him as co-party in the present consumer complaint. There is recital in affidavit that complainant approached opposite party No.1 for loan and an amount of Rs.2000000/-(Twenty lac) was sanctioned in favour of complainant. There is further recital in affidavit that complainant also executed loan agreement in favour of opposite party No.1 and also mortgaged his property with opposite party No.1. There is recital in affidavit that no forgery was committed by opposite party No.1. There is recital in affidavit that complainant availed loan facility from opposite party No.1 and upon instruction of complainant loan amount was transferred in the account of opposite party No.2. There is recital in affidavit that when complainant failed to repay loan amount then notice was issued to complainant for repayment of loan amount but complainant did not repay 5 Manish Kumar Versus Himachal Gramin Bank & Anr. C.C. No.14/2017 the loan amount. There is further recital in affidavit that complainant himself signed the transfer voucher amounting to Rs.2300000/-(Two lac thirty thousand) in favour of opposite party No.2. There is recital in affidavit that complainant is liable to pay loan amount of Rs.3301733/- (Thirty three lac one thousand seven hundred thirty three). There is recital in affidavit that OP bank has filed loan recovery application before Debt Recovery Tribunal Chandigarh. State Commission has carefully perused all the annexures filed by opposite party No.1.
8. Opposite party No.2 filed affidavit of Sh. Amarjeet Singh Ext.OP2 in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that complainant was employee in office of opposite party No.2. There is recital in affidavit that amount of loan was disbursed in the account of opposite party No.2. There is recital in affidavit that amount of Rs.1500000/-(Fifteen lac) was paid to complainant on 15.10.2017 and rest of amount was invested in Brick Kiln Bhatta to the extent of 10% share. There is further recital in affidavit that complainant invested the amount in partnership as per his share. There is recital in affidavit that complainant was employee of opposite party No.2 and complainant being employee of opposite party No.2 forged alleged documents for the purpose of availing loan. There is recital in affidavit 6 Manish Kumar Versus Himachal Gramin Bank & Anr. C.C. No.14/2017 that loan agreement was executed between opposite party No.1 and complainant only. There is recital in affidavit that complainant has himself played fraud for obtaining loan amount. There is recital in affidavit that present complaint has been filed in order to avoid repayment of loan amount. There is recital in affidavit that firm of opposite party No.2 was not carrying any business as alleged by complainant. There is recital in affidavit that complainant has filed false criminal complaint against opposite parties. There is recital in affidavit that complainant is himself a wrong doer and want to obtain wrongful financial gain by way of playing fraud and concealment of true facts.
9. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that opposite party No.1 be directed to issue NOC against loan amount and opposite party No.1 be also directed to issue NOC relating to mortgaged property of complainant situated at Village Jablu HB No.247 Pargana Rampur Tehsil Nalagarh District Solan H.P is decided accordingly. Dispute inter se parties is relating to settlement of accounts and forgery. Proceedings under Consumer Protection Act 1986 are summary proceedings. State Commission is of the opinion that matter relating to forgery and settlement of accounts require elaborate detailed inquiry by civil court. State Commission is of the 7 Manish Kumar Versus Himachal Gramin Bank & Anr. C.C. No.14/2017 opinion that it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principle of natural justice to decide forgery dispute and settlement of accounts dispute under Consumer Protection Act 1986. See 1998(III) CPJ 9 NC (Four members bench) titled Vishal Roadways Versus Economic Traders (Gujarat) Ltd. See 2019(1) CLT 364 NC titled Devraj Kishore Das Versus Chief Manager Reliance LIC Ltd. & Ors. See 2018(3) CPR 89 NC titled Bharti Singh Rathor Versus Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.
10. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that direction be issued to opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.1000000/-(Ten lac) to complainant for causing loss to complainant due to deficiency in service is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that dispute inter se parties is relating to forgery of documents and relating to settlement of accounts. State Commission is of the opinion that it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principle of natural justice to decide present dispute relating to forgery and settlement of loan account under Consumer Protection Act 1986 in a summary manner.
11. Submission of the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that opposite parties be directed 8 Manish Kumar Versus Himachal Gramin Bank & Anr. C.C. No.14/2017 to pay a sum of Rs.1000000/-(Ten lac) for causing mental agony and harassment to complainant is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that dispute inter se parties is relating to forgery of documents and relating to settlement of loan account. State Commission is of the opinion that it is expedient in the ends of justice and on the principle of natural justice to relegate the complainant to civil court for adjudication of his dispute.
12. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that opposite parties be directed to pay a sum of Rs.50000/-(Fifty thousand) as litigation costs is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that matter inter se parties require elaborate detailed inquiry by civil court and it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principle of natural justice to dispose of consumer complaint on merits under Consumer Protection Act 1986 in a summary manner. State Commission is of the opinion that it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principle of natural justice to impose litigation costs upon opposite parties.
13. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party No.1 that complicated question of facts and laws are involved in present consumer complaint 9 Manish Kumar Versus Himachal Gramin Bank & Anr. C.C. No.14/2017 and complainant be relegated to civil court for adjudication of dispute is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that in view of allegation of forgery and non settlement of loan account it is expedient in the ends of justice and on the principle of natural justice to relegate the complainant to civil court. It is well settled law that when matter of fraud and forgery is involved in consumer complaint then jurisdiction under Consumer Protection Act 1986 is ousted. See 1995(III) CPJ 77 SCDRC Karnataka titled Dowell Plastic Pvt. Ltd. Versus Sham Plastic Consultants & Ors. See 2002(1) CPC 303 Chandigarh titled Shri Baljit Singh Versus Arvindra Electronics Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. See 1997(II) CPJ 407 SCDRC Punjab titled Parvinder Kaur & Ors. Versus Union Bank of India & Anr. See 2019(2) CPJ 180 SCDRC Punjab titled Amandeep Rao & Anr. Versus LIC Housing Finance Ltd. & Ors. It is held that loan account is still in running condition and loan has not been yet liquidated by complainant and present matter is a settlement of account matter at the most which is outside the purview of consumer Protection Act 1986. In view of above stated facts point No.1 is decided accordingly. Point No.2: Final Order
14. In view of findings upon point No.1 above complainant is relegated to civil court for adjudication of 10 Manish Kumar Versus Himachal Gramin Bank & Anr. C.C. No.14/2017 his forgery of documents dispute and for adjudication of settlement of accounts dispute. Parties are left with to bear their own costs before State Commission. File of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties forthwith free of costs strictly as per rules. Complaint is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.
Justice P.S. Rana (R) President Vijay Pal Khachi Member 21.06.2019 Sunita Sharma K.D Member 11