Haryana

Karnal

CC/408/2024

Mohit Bansal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Central Bank Of India - Opp.Party(s)

Hitesh Sahni

18 Sep 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

Complaint.No.408 of 2024

Date of instt. 22.08.2024

Date of Decision: 18.09.2024

 

Mohit Bansal son of Shri Chander Parkash Bansal, resident of H.No.599, Randhir Lane, Karnal.

         ...…Complainant

                                  Versus

Central Bank of India, Branch situated at Choura Bazar, Karnal, through its Branch Manager.

                                                       .....Opposite party.

                                            

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Before          Sh. Jaswant Singh………President. 

              Mrs.Neeru Agarwal…….Member

              Mrs.Sarvjeet Kaur..……… Member.

                    

Present:  Shri Hitesh Sahni, counsel for the complainant.

                      

              Today the case is fixed for consideration on the point of admissibility.

              Brief facts of the complaint are that earlier to this complaint, the complainant had filed an application before Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services, Karnal and the same was withdrawn on technical ground by the complainant with the permission to file fresh case on the same cause of action in a competent court of law. Complainant is having saving bank A/c No.1832520346 with the OP and the complainant was having a passbook from the said account. At the opening of account, the OP had taken specimen signature of complainant for future transactions. Complainant passed B.Tech from NIT, Kurukshetra in the year 2003 and in the year 2005, the complainant left India and shifted to USA for further studies and obtained Master Degree in 2007 and in May 2009, the complainant got married and complainant came to India for two months. In the year 2014, due to expiry of VISA, complainant came back to India and started residing at Karnal and at that time when the complainant was in USA his passbook and cheque book were lying in his house under the custody of his father and on 06.12.2014, Rs.25,00,000/- withdrawn from the account of complainant and another Rs.58000/- were withdrawn illegally in April 2015 and complainant came to know about the said fact on 03.09.2015, when complainant visited the bank for withdrawal of some amount. The complainant shocked when he came to know that through some alleged self cheque Rs.25 lacs was withdrawan by forging the signature of complainant. The complainant never put his signature on the said cheque and in this regard complainant made a complaint to the OP and OP assured that they will obtain report from expert in this regard who is authorized by OP and Manager of OP further told that they has sent the said cheques alongwith specimen signature to Forensic Lab, New Delhi, but till today, the report has not been received. Complainant moved an application to concerned police for taking necessary action and S.P.Karnal, assured that they will take necessary action against the OP after getting report from J.K.Consultancy, FSL, New Delhi. The OP has reviewed the FSL report but till today OP has not iniaited any action against the officials of OP and or against other person whereas it is the duty of the OP to get compare the signatures before passing/sanctioning of cheque but OP and its official also indulge in a corroupt practice, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Despite repeated requests, the OP did not do so. Hence, the present complaint. 

              Arguments on the point of admissibility of complaint heard.

              Learned counsel for the complainant argued that firstly he filed an application U/s 22C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 before the Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalat For Public Utility Services, Karnal but the same has been withdrawan by the complainant as the same has been filed before the wrong authority. He further argued that OP in collusion with some unknown person got transferred an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- and Rs.58,000/- from the account of complainant fraudulently by presenting self cheque by putting the forged signature of the complainant. The complainant requested the OP several times to inquire into the matter and get refunded his amount in his account but the OP did not do so. Hence, in this way, there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP.  Learned counsel for complainant placed reliance on the case law titled as Smt.Mousmi Chakraborty and others Versus The Oriental Insurance Company, DOD 27.05.2015.

              The amount in question has been allegedly withdrawan from the account of complainant on 06.12.2014 and April 2015 and the present complaint has been filed on 22.08.2024.

              Now, the question arises for consideration before this Commission is that whether the present complaint has been filed under the period of limitation prescribed under Section 69 (1) of Consumer Protectioin Act, 2019.

              Limitation for filing a complaint before the Commission prescribed under Section Section 69 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which is reproduced as under:-

69. (1) The District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period:

Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the District Commission or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.

              The cause of action in the present case has arisen on 06.12.2014 and April 2015, when amount of Rs.25,00,000/- and Rs.58000/- were debited from the account of the complainant. The complainant has alleged that earlier counsel filed the application U/s 22 C of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 on 05.12.2016 and the same has been withdrawn by the complainant on 10.07.2024 with the permission to file fresh case before the competent court of law.

              On perusal of the order dated 10.07.2024, passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, reveals that the complainant at the time of withdrawal of his case neither sought permission for excluding the period consumed during the pendency of the application nor the Permanent Lok Adalat, itself excluded the period consumed there.

              Neither the complainant has filed separate application for condonation of delay for filing the present complaint nor sought condonation of delay in the present complaint.

              The cheque book and passbook were himself handed over by the complainant to his father and disputed amount were withdrawal at the time when the complainant was residing in USA. The possibility for using the said cheques by his father cannot be ruled out and that’s why the complainant has not impleaded his father as party in the present complaint for the reason best known to him who can very well known that who had used the said cheques.

              The Permanent Lok Adalat, was not the wrong authority where the complainant has filed his earlier application on the same complainant is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present complaint. 

             Hence, in view the above discussion present complaint is hereby dismissed being barred by limitation in limine. Parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and file be consigned to the record room.

Dated: 18.09.2024.      

     President, 

District Consumer Disputes

Redressal Commission, Karnal.

(Neeru Agarwal)            (Sarvjeet Kaur) 

    Member                       Member