Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

In the case of P.N. Khanna Vs. Bank of India decided by Hon'ble National Commission it was held "... a three member Bench of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi it was held that when 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."

In Devashish Mitra Vs. Managing Director, Lakshmi Varsha Company & Anr. it was held "The appellant has charged the respondent with the commission of fraud, deception and cheating.  Deficiency in service in a particular case may be incidental to deception, fraud and cheating, but the appellant/complainant has to seek redress for such offences and consequent for the damage done to him under the appropriate law in the appropriate law courts."

In III (1995) CPJ 120 this Commission in K.V. Subbanna Vs. Kusuma & Ors. in paragraph 9 "The allegation of deficiency in service is only incidental to deception, fraud and cheating.  The determination of deception, fraud and cheating will not be undertaken by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.  The National Commission while considering such an aspect, in Devashish Mitra Vs. The Managing Director, Lakshmi Varsha Company & Another, reported in Vol.I (1992) CPJ 30, at para 8, held as under:

"8.  Again the appellant had charged the respondent with the commission of fraud, deception and cheating.  Deficiency in service in a particular case may be incidental to deception, fraud and cheating, but the appellant / complainant has to seek redress for such offences and consequent for the damage done to him under the appropriate law in the appropriate law Courts.  Determination of deception, fraud and cheating will not ordinarily be undertaken by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and this must be determined before we can reach the consequential issue of alleged deficiency in service, if any."