Date of Filing: 13.05.2008<br /> Date of Order:12.08.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> <br /> Dated: 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 2008<br /> PRESENT<br /> Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 1124 OF 2008<br /> Nasrulla Khan S.J.<br /> # 230, 4th Cross, 27th Main<br /> BTM Layout, 1st Stage<br /> Bangalore 560 068 Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> 1. HDFC Bank Ltd. (H/O)<br /> Rep. by its Manager (Legal)<br /> Mr. U. Mukundan<br /> # 5, Door No. 6, MTH Road<br /> Villivakkam, Chennai 600 049<br /> <br /> 2. HDFC Bank Ltd. (Branch)<br /> Representatives (Recovery)<br /> Mr. Rajesh / Mr. Jain<br /> Golden Enclave, IBM Building<br /> III Floor, Bangalore 560 017 Opposite Parties<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed by the complainant for grant of compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/-.<br /> Complainant states that he is an ex-serviceman presently employed as a teacher in the Government High School Bagalkunte Bangalore. He had been implicated under a false case of fraud and cheating for having defaulted credit card payment by the HDFC Bank. Complainant is not the customer of the HDFC Bank or do not hold credit card of any other bank. On 25th March 2008 he received a summons from X Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai to appear before the Magistrate on 11.04.2008. Complainant was booked under the criminal charges under section IPC 406 and 420. He rushed to Chennai along with his sister to engage advocate. Details were collected by his lawyer and he has sent legal notice to bank as to verify the details of the person who had taken the credit card. The lawyer instructed the bank to issue an un-conditional apology letter and to pay compensation for impleading the complainant in a false case. The complainant stated in his complaint that no amount of apology or compensation can get his mother back nor can restore his peaceful life. He wants to fight the case against the bank. He sought compensation for monetary loss, physical and mental torture. <br /> 2. Notice was issued to opposite party. The opposite party has put in appearance through advocate. Defence version filed stating that complaint is not maintainable. Complainant is not a Consumer as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 1986. No transaction has been taken place between the complainant and the opposite party. The bank had registered case against the customer by name Nasrullah Khan but not against the present complainant. Complainant is not entitled for compensation. There is no deficiency in service. Therefore, the opposite party prayed to dismiss the complaint. <br /> 3. Arguments heard. Perused the complaint and the affidavits. <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 4. The complainant is an ex-serviceman served in Indian Air force and presently he is employed in Government High School as a teacher. As per his own case he is not a customer of the opposite party bank. He does not hold any credit card of the opposite party bank or any other bank. With this real fact it is very unfortunate that the complainant received the court summons from X Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai. The HDFC Bank had filed complaint before Metropolitan Magistrate under section 406 and 420 IPC against one Nasrullah Khan. Incidentally the name of the present complainant is Nasrullah Khan. The summons was sent wrongly to the address of the complainant and therefore, he received the summons and in pursuance of the summons issued by the Metropolitan Magistrate he rushed to Chennai and engaged lawyer there to plead his case and submitted that he is not the Nasrullah Khan who has taken credit card facility from the bank. Criminal case was not against the present complainant but it was against another Nasrullah Khan who was the customer of the bank. Lawyer has sent legal notice to bank along with photograph and specimen signature and instructed the bank to issue an unconditional apology letter and pay compensation for implicating falsely. The learned advocate for the opposite party also fairly submitted that the complainant is not the customer of the bank. He does not hold any credit card issued by the bank. The learned advocate also submitted criminal case filed in X Metropolitan Magistrate Court is not against the present complainant. That case is nothing to do with the complainant. So under these circumstances the complainant is not a Consumer under the definition of Consumer Protection Act. Section 2 (1) (d) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 defines ‘Consumer’ as under:<br /> “1. Consumer means any person who buys any goods for consideration<br /> 2. hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised”<br /> 5. So under the above definition it is clear that the present complainant does not fall under the definition of ‘Consumer’ because he has not availed any services of the opposite party bank. He is not holding credit card of the opposite party bank. Therefore, this complaint under the Consumer Protection Act is not maintainable. The remedy of the complainant is else where. He cannot convert this forum into a Civil Court or Criminal Court. Consumer Protection Act is a special Act. The Act protects the better interests of the Consumers. Before getting relief under the Act the complainant has to establish that he is a Consumer as defined under the Act. No doubt the complainant has suffered lot mentally, physically and financially on account of implication of his name in the criminal complaint filed by the opposite party bank. The remedy of the complainant is to file and sue against the opposite party bank for damages or even he could file a criminal case for defamation against the opposite party bank for falsely implicating him in criminal case. The complainant will be at liberty to get the relief or justice from the competent court if he is so advised. As regards the relief from the hands of this forum it is very difficult to grant any compensation to the complainant. The dismissal of the complaint will be no bar to the complainant to seek justice from the competent court of law against the opposite party bank. On the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the opinion that no relief could be granted to the complainant in this proceedings. The complainant will be at liberty to take to the justice the opposite party bank in a competent forum of Civil and Criminal Court. With this observation the complaint deserves to be dismissed. The same is dismissed. No order as to costs.<br /> 6. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 7. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 2008. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings. <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER <br /> <br />