Haryana

StateCommission

A/1083/2016

VISHAL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA - Complainant(s)

Versus

ANDHRA BANK - Opp.Party(s)

DEVINDER KUMAR

19 Dec 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :    1083 of 2016

Date of Institution:      09.11.2016

Date of Decision :      19.12.2016

 

Vishal Kumar Srivastava s/o Sh. Shyam Narain Lal Srivastava, Resident of GAK 161, Building No.2, DLF New Town Heights, Sector 86, Gurgaon-122004.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

1.      Andhra Bank Branch 1115, Sector-31, Gurgaon-122001, through its Branch Manager.

2.      General Manager and Chief Vigilance Officer, Andhra Bank, Head Office, Secretariat Road, Saifabad Hyderabad-500004.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Argued by:          Shri Davinder Kumar, Advocate for appellant.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          This complainant’s appeal is directed against the order dated May 17^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (for short ‘the District Forum’), whereby complaint was dismissed with liberty to approach the appropriate court having jurisdiction.  

2.                Vishal Kumar Srivastava-complainant (appellant herein) filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ‘the Act, 1986’), averring that one Sanjay Yadav withdrew an amount of Rs.8,96,400/- through a forged cheque bearing No.0365232 dated 5^th June, 2015 from his saving account No.111510100033777 maintained with Andhra Bank-Opposite Party No.1. First Information Report (FIR) No.203 was lodged in Police Station, Sector-40, Gurgaon. It was alleged that the amount was withdrawn by playing fraud in connivance with the bank officials/opposite parties.

3.                The District Forum dismissed the complaint at preliminary stage observing that question of fraud and cheating requires elaborate evidence and the same cannot be decided in summary trial; however liberty was given to the complainant to approach the appropriate court having jurisdiction.

4.                Learned counsel for the appellant-complainant has assailed the order of the District Forum raising plea that the officials of the bank acted as a blind eye while releasing the amount of Rs.8,96,400/- of the forged cheque with mismatch handwriting and mismatch of the amount in numeric and also in words. In numeric, the amount was mentioned as Rs.8,96,400/- whereas in words it was mentioned as “Eight Lakhs ninety six thousand and hundred rupees only”.  The bank officials failed to match the signature of the complainant with the forged signature which was put on the cheque.  Thus, since the bank officials were deficient in releasing the amount of forged cheque, therefore the complaint was maintainable under the Act, 1986.

5.                The contention raised is not tenable. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Synoo Industries v. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur & Ors., (2002) 2 SCC 1, held as under:

“Given the nature of the claim in the complaint and the prayer for damages in the sum of rupees fifteen crores and for an additional sum of rupees sixty lakh for covering the cost of travelling and other expenses incurred by the appellant, it is obvious that very detailed evidence would have to be led, both to prove the claim and thereafter to prove the damages and expenses. It is, therefore, in any event, not an appropriate case to be heard and disposed of in a summary fashion. The National Commission was right in giving to the appellant liberty to move the civil Court. This is an appropriate claim for a civil Court to decide and, obviously, was not filed before a civil Court to start with because, before the consumer forum, any figure in damages can be claimed without having to pay the Court fees. This, in that sense, is an abuse of the process of the consumer Forum”

6.                In V.S. Badlani v. Indian Bank, I (2008) CPJ 76 (NC) Hon’ble National Commission held as under:-

“Seeing various judgments of the Supreme Court and this Commission, it is evident that wherever not only the complicated questions of law but dispute questions of facts, relating to unauthorized representations made about paying higher rate of interest and requirement of recording voluminous evidence etc. and relating to forgery and conspiracy involving eight persons and other points mentioned earlier are involved, it would be desirable that the matter should not be dealt with by this Commission and could be relegated to the civil Court. We feel that in the present state of law and observation of the Supreme Court itself and the aforesaid circumstances, we cannot take any other view.”

7.                In view of the above, it is held that the District Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint. No case for interference is made out.

8.                Hence, the appeal fails. It is dismissed.

 

 

Announced 19.12.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL