Haryana

Gurgaon

CC/289/2016

Vishal kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Andhra Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Ajay Yadav

13 May 2016

ORDER

                    Vishal Kumar Srivastava          Vs      Andhra Bank

 

 

Present        Shri Ajay Yadav, Adv for the complainant.

 

                   Complainant request for adjournment. To come up on 17.05.2016 for consideration.

 

                                      Member                 Member                 President,

                                                                                                DCDRF, GGN

                                                                                                13.05.2016.

 

 

 

Present        Shri Permanad Yadav, Adv for the complainant.

 

ORDER

                   Power of attorney on behalf of complainant filed.

                   Heard on the point of admissibility.

                   The complainant has alleged in the complaint that he is having Saving Bank A/c No.111510100033777 and locker facility with the OP Bank. He has further alleged that Mr. Sanjay Yadav and or persons unknown to him has swindled away with the money to the tune of Rs.8,96,400/- lying in the saving bank account of the complainant by making a fraudulent cash transaction through a forged and deficient bearer cheque dated 05.06.2015 bearing No.0365232. The OP Bank has failed to maintain due duty of care and proper checks and balances while releasing payment under such forged and deficient bearer cheque and thereby forced the complainant to suffer huge monetary loss to the tune of Rs. 8,96,400/-.

                   Heard.

                   After going through the contents of the complaint and the documents placed on file it emerges that in the present matter the questions of fraud and cheating are involved which require elaborate evidence. The complainant has approached the police station also and got FIR bearing No.203 dated 08.06.2015 P.S. Sector 40, Gurgaon registered. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant has alleged in the body of the complaint that said amount has been withdrawn fraudulently and in an illegal manner in connivance with the bank officials. Therefore, when there is playing of fraud by deceitful means then the question of deficiency does not arise so as to attract the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and therefore, the authority relied upon by the learned counsel for the complainant titled State of Rajasthan Vs M/s Kalyan Sundaram Cement Industries Ltd & Ors 1996 SCC (3) 87 and N.Venkanna Vs Andhra Bank I (2006) CPJ 132 (NC) are of no help to the complainant.

                   Moreover,  the issues involved are beyond the purview of summary jurisdiction of this Forum as held in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd Vs Munimahesh Patel 2006 (2) CPC 668 (SC), Reliance Industries Ltd Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd I (1998) CPJ 13 and M/s Singhal Swarop Ispat Ltd Vs United Commercial Bank III (1992) CPJ 50.  Reliance can also be placed on M/s Grasim Industries Ltd Vs M/s Agarwal Steel 2010(1) SCC 83 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held

“that when there are allegations of fraud by the complainant and fraud is to be proved like a criminal charge, as already observed an inference of alleged fraud upon the complainant cannot be recorded by this Forum.”

                   Therefore, in view of above law the present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum and the same is hereby dismissed. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach before appropriate  court having jurisdiction.

                   File be consigned to the records after due compliance.

 

 

                                      Member                 Member                 President,

                                                                                                DCDRF, GGN

                                                                                                17.05.2016.