DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

Consumer Complaint No.858 of 2019

                                                Date of institution:  30.05.2019                                             Date of decision   :  11.06.2019

Harprabhjot Singh aged about 44 years son of Shri Hardev Singh, resident of House No.1938, Sector 64, SAS Nagar, Mohali.

…….Complainant

Versus

1.     Catholic Syrian Bank through its Managing Director/Chairman at CSB Bhawan, PO 502, Sainte Mary’s College Road, Thrissur 680020, Kerala.

2.     Catholic Syrian Bank, SCO 114-115, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh 160022 through its Branch Manager.

3.     Neeraj Kochar son of Shri Ravi Kochar, resident of House No.1013, Sector 30-B, Chandigarh Pin 160014.

4.     Shri Ankush Verma c/o Neeraj Kochar son of Shri Ravi Kochar, resident of House No.1013, Sector 30-B, Chandigarh Pin 160014.

                                                            ……..Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of

the Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum:    Shri G.K. Dhir, President,

                Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.

Present:     Shri Gulshan K. Arora, counsel for complainant.

Order by :-  Shri G.K. Dhir, President.

Order

               In August 2013 Neeraj Kochhar and Ankush Verma approached complainant and represented as if Neeraj Kochhar is Proprietor of Dhanlaxmi Financial Consultant, who can arrange private, housing, business, car and all kinds of loans from different Govt./private banks/private institutions. Complainant fixed a meeting at his residence situate in Sector 64 at Mohali. There Neeraj Kochhar alongwith Ankush Verma allured complainant by telling him about different loans and financial schemes of many banks. Finally they approached complainant for Catholic Syrian Bank (hereinafter referred as ‘OP bank’) by claiming that they have good relationship with the bank Manager and higher officers of that bank.  Thereafter Neeraj Kochhar fixed a meeting with S. Suku, Manager of OP bank at Chandigarh. Said Manager asked complainant to start banking with their bank by assuring to provide housing loan and vehicle loan. Complainant also received phone calls of higher officials of the bank from Head Office at Kerala. S. Suku and Neeraj Kochhar started work on private housing loan and vehicle loan to complainant. They called upon complainant to provide certain documents i.e. bank statement, registration deed of immovable property, GMADA Certificate of property, copies of last three years income tax returns, property valuation report etc.  Complainant was called upon to bring original documents and thereafter complainant reached the bank premises, where he was asked to sign several documents including blank papers. Thereafter S. Suku, above said Manager and Neeraj Kochhar expressed inability to provide housing loan for the reasons best known to them. They started procrastinating the matter. When complainant asked the Manager to return his documents, then the Manager claimed as if he has used the documents for approval of car loan. Even complainant was disclosed as if the bank has not pledged immovable property of complainant and his property is free from all encumbrances. They handed over original registration deed and issued NOC in favour of complainant. Later on, complainant planned to sell his property bearing plot No.1009, Sector 77, SAS Nagar and sold the same to Tirath Gulati and Inderpreet Singh, who sold the same further to Jasbir Singh. Thereafter Mr. Cebestian, official of OP bank disclosed complainant that he has committed default in repaying the installments. Complainant was disclosed that the Manager had been transferred to some other branch and that the documents handed over by complainant to the Manager and Neeraj Kochhar were used for securing loan in the name of Satwinder Kaur wife of Neeraj Kochhar and Alisha Tuli, an employee of Neeraj Kochhar. It is claimed that forged documents prepared and misused by Neeraj Kochhar in connivance with Manager S. Suku and the bank. Complainant got knowledge as if Neeraj Kochhar due to indulging in illegal activities has been booked in some cases of forging public documents. It is claimed that Neeraj Kochhar may have prepared false ID of complainant and his wife by misusing documents. By claiming that OPs played fraud with complainant by misusing documents, this complaint filed for directing OPs to return documents of complainant. Even appropriate action against OPs for misusing documents of complainant sought. Compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.18.00 lakhs more claimed.

2.             Arguments for admission purposes heard.

3.             After going through the complaint, it is made out that though initial meeting of complainant with Neeraj Kochhar held at his residence in Sector 64, SAS Nagar (Mohali), but subsequent meetings with S. Suku, Manager of OP bank took place in bank premises at Chandigarh. Signatures on several documents including blank papers of complainant even obtained in bank premises at Chandigarh as per contents of Para No.5 of the complaint. Complainant claims that he has been cheated by way of misusing documents submitted by him with OP bank. Those documents were submitted by complainant with OP bank at Chandigarh, as per contents of Para No.5 of the complaint itself. Housing loan was to be provided to complainant as per assurances given by S. Suku, Manager and Neeraj Kochhar, but same has not been provided, but original documents submitted by complainant have been misused for preparing false ID of complainant and his wife, as per contents of complaint. So present is a case of commission of offences of cheating and fraud and of forgery of documents. All these acts of forgery and fraud took place at Chandigarh, where signatures of complainant obtained and the documents got submitted from him. So cause of action accrued to complainant at Chandigarh and not in the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. It is not the first meeting of complainant with OP No.3 or OP No.4 that gives rise to cause of action for filing this complaint, but it is the meetings held at Chandigarh branch which gives rise to cause of action for filing this complaint because of commission of offences of forgery, cheating and fraud at Chandigarh. So in view of Section 11 of Consumer Protection Act, complaint could have been filed at Chandigarh. All the OPs impleaded in this case are having their residences or branches at Chandigarh, but Head Office of OP bank is in Kerala and as such it is obvious that none of the OPs residing in the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Being so, case of complainant does not fall in any of the clauses (a) to (c) of Section 11 (2) of Consumer Protection Act. So this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction.

4.             Present is not a case in which transaction arrived at through online access or through website and as such benefit from ratio of case Casio India Co. Ltd. Vs. Ashita Tele Systems Pvt. Ltd. 106 (2003) DLT 544 (Hon’ble Delhi High Court) cannot be availed by complainant.

5.             Present is a case in which cause of action accrued on account of breach of terms of contract of providing housing loan to complainant because of fraud and forgery. Cause of action in case of contractual matters arises at a place, where either the contract is arrived at or where acceptance of a contract is communicated or where the contract is performed or is to be performed or where money under the contract is either payable or paid or where communication  of repudiation of contract is received. Present case does not fall in any of those categories because the contract was arrived at Chandigarh, where complainant submitted documents and signed on the papers meant for arrival of the contract. As on signing of documents or submission of documents, contract was arrived at and as such communication of acceptance took place at Chandigarh itself. Amount of housing loan was to be paid at Chandigarh or same was payable there on completion of formalities on arrival of contract and as such no part of cause of action accrued in territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Submission of counsel for complainant to the contrary has no force.

6.             During course of arguments, counsel for complainant placed on record copy of application sent by complainant to SSP, Chandigarh. Perusal of that application dated 16.11.2016 submitted by complainant with SSP, Chandigarh reveals as if two notices dated 14.10.2016 have been got issued by OP bank upon complainant and his wife through Advocate. Through this application, complainant sought to project as if no case of criminal nature or of civil nature made out for recovery of amount against complainant. Complainant learnt as if case with the Economic Offences Wing situate in Sector 17, Chandigarh is pending for necessary action against complainant. Complainant prayed for non registration of case on the request of Manager of OP Bank. So from this application dated 16.11.2016, it is made out that complainant became fully aware of issue of notices to him in November, 2016 and as such looking from that angle also, it is to be held that complainant got knowledge regarding alleged incidence of fraud or of cheating in November, 2016, when he submitted request with SSP, Chandigarh through above referred application. Complainant has not mentioned anywhere in his complaint as to when he submitted documents or when assurance for providing housing loan was given to him and as such virtually complainant is suppressing material facts while filing this complaint regarding date of accrual of cause of action. However, keeping in view application dated 16.11.2016 referred above, it is obvious that complainant got knowledge virtually about offences of forgery or of cheating, if any, in 2016, but this complaint filed on 30.05.2019 i.e. much after expiry of limitation period of two years as envisaged by Section 24-A of Consumer Protection Act. Being so, complaint also being barred by limitation deserves to be dismissed at admission stage itself, particularly when allegations of fraud or of forgery cannot be gone into summary proceedings of consumer complaint. Plethora of precedents lean in favour of holding that as and when allegations of forgery, fraud or of cheating are leveled, then their adjudication require elaborate evidence by way of examination and cross examination of witnesses and as such matter should not be decided by Consumer Fora. Reference can be made to cases of P.N. Khanna Vs. Bank of India, II (2015) CPJ 54 (NC);  Bright Transport Company Vs. Sangli Sahakari Bank Ltd., II (2012) CPJ 151 (NC): Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Munnimaesh Patel IV (2006) CPJ 1 (SC); Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., I (1998) CPJ 13 (NC); M/s. Singhal Swaroop Ispat Ltd. Vs. United Commercial Bank, III (1992) CPJ 50 (NC); Sagli Ram Vs. General Manager United India Insurance Co. Ltd. II (1994) CPJ 444;  Harbans & Co. Vs. State Bank of India, II (1994) CPJ 456; Jayantilal Keshavlal Chauhan Vs. The National Insurance Co. Ltd. 1994(1) CPR 396 and Ranju Devi Vs. Branch Manager, State Bank of India 2015(4) CLT 131 (JHK).

7.             So complainant should approach civil court or the court dealing with criminal cases because complex questions of law and facts regarding forgery, fraud and cheating require elaborate investigation. So looking from any angle, this complaint is not maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction and also being because of barred by limitation and also on account of requirement of adjudication of controversy in question by competent civil court or court dealing with criminal cases.

8.             As a sequel of above discussion, complaint dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Complainant may approach the Forum/Authority having jurisdiction. Certified copy of the order be supplied to the complainant free of cost as per rules.  File be indexed and consigned to record room.

Announced

June 11, 2019.

                                                                (G.K. Dhir)

                                                                President

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member