BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL BENCH DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSURU.

Consumer Complaint (C.C.)No. 1444/2016

Complaint filed on .30.08.2016

Date of Judgement.28.05.2018

PRESENT                      :         1. Shri Ramachandra  M.S.,  B.A., LL.B.,

                                                   PRESIDENT

2. Shri  Thammanna,Y.S., B.Sc., LL.B., 

                                       MEMBER

Complainant/s       :                         Sri. A.N. Somanna

                                                          S/o Late Patel Nanjappa

                                                          Aged about 53 years,

R/at Annur Village

                                                          H.D. Kote Taluk,

Mysore District.

          (Sri. C.Rangarajan., Advocate)

V/s

Opponent        /s             :       1.      The manager

                                                          I.D.B.I Bank

                                                          Saraswathipuram Branch

                                                          Mysuru.

       (Sri. P.K. Ponnaiah Advocate)

                                                2.       The General Manager

                                                          I.D.B.I Bank

                                                          1^st Floor, Tradeview,

OASIS complex,

Kamala City, P.B. Marg,

Lower Parel (W),

Mumbai-400013

(Sri. M.N. Premnath., Advocate)

           SHRI RAMACHANDRA . M.S.,

           PRESIDENT

JUDGEMENT

The complainant filed the complaint under section 12 of the C.P.Act 1986, seeking for the relief of compensation and prayed for other reliefs.

           2. The brief facts of complaint  that the complainant is an agriculturist, who grows tobacco, hence for the said transaction he has opened an SB account with opposite parties Bank vide account no. 028110400086994 and he also availed a crop loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- in the year 2011 through loan account no 0281651100000578. Thereafter the opposite party bank has obtained 17 cheque leaves from the complainant with respect to the above said loan transaction, and whenever the complainant use to sell the Tobacco, the sale consideration is credited to the SB account of opposite party bank and the opposite party bank by using the cheques issued by the complainant used to withdraw the amount from his SB account and the same was adjusted to the loan account of complainant.

          3. It is further stated by the complainant that, whenever he sell his Tobacco through Tobacco Board, the sale consideration amount will automatically credited to his account.

          4. Further it is stated that, the opposite party bank officials, without the consent of complainant have opened multiple accounts and they have misused the cheques issued by the complainant and they have made transactions as per the whims and fancies and the opposite party bank officials have opened the account bearing non 0281651100001578, another account bearing no.028165110001090, 0281673100000620 and another account bearing no.0281672200000338, when this fact of creating multiple accounts without consent of the complainant came to his knowledge he has immediately gave requisition dated 25.02.2015 to the op bank, but till today the opposite parties have not given any explanation with respect to misuse of cheque leaves and also opening of multiple accounts  withdrawing the amount from his SB account without any accountability.

          5. It is further submitted that, with respect to the loan availed by the complainant the repayment schedule was supposed to commence from January 2012, but in spite of deducting the amount from his SB account, the same has not been credited to the loan account and the op bank officials have not closed the loan account, in spite of the complainant maintained sufficient balance in his SB account to close the loan availed by him. But instead of that, the op bank officials have told the complainant that they could not able to commence the repayment schedule since 2012 due to some mistake and they will commence the repayment from January 2016. The said explanation could not be digested by the complainant as because in spite of having a sufficient amount in h8is SB account  he was unnecessarily make to pay the interest since 2012 that too by mistake on the part of the op bank officials. Hence this complaint seeking for the relief of direction and declaration.

          6 Notice to the opposite party duly served represented by counsel  filed version and affidavit.

7. The complainant filed chief examination affidavit and relied on several documents, filed written arguments, and heard oral arguments. on perusing material documentary evidence on record and also by considering the affidavit matter is posted for orders.

8. The points arose for our considerations are:-

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable?
2. What order?

9. Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows;

Point No. 1: In the negative

                        Point  No.2: As per the final order:

REASONS

10. Point no:1:-That the complainant is agriculturist , grows tobacco he is also an account holder opposite party bank and he availed crop loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- in the year 2011 and its account no 02816511-00000578 for which opposite party bank obtained 17 cheque leaves  from the complainant.

11. Further whenever complainant used to sell the tobacco the payment used to credited to his SB account of opposite party bank and it is alleged that the opposite party bank by using the cheques issued by me, they used to withdraw amount from the S.B. account and same was adjusted to his loan account. The complainant alleged that during the year 2011-2012 the opposite party bank credited Rs. 1,05,795/- to the loan amount likewise Rs. 1,69,807/- is credited during the year 2012-13 and for the year 2013-2014 Rs, 57,039/- is credited and for the year 2014 to 2016 totally payment of Rs. 8,29,506/- is credited as per the complainant averments.

12. It is alleged by the complainant that the opposite party bank without complaint consent have opened the multiple accounts in his name, it is categorically alleged that opposite party bank has misused cheques issued by complainant. When these act of opposite party came to complainant knowledge, he gave requisition dated 25.02.2016 to the opposite party bank. In spite of it till today opposite party has not given any reply to the requisition.

13. It is further alleged that as per the loan re payment schedule of complainant repayment of loan amount was supposed to commence on Jan 2012. But in spite of deducting the amount from the complainant SB account why the same was not being credited to his loan account and why opposite party bank have not closed loan account. When complainant raised the issue before the opposite party bank they gave evasive answer and also   explained why they were  not able to commence payment schedule further  they admit that due to their own mistake they were not able to commence re payment schedule from the Jan 2016, for which complainant contended due to the mistake of opposite party bank why should he suffer unnecessarily and make the interest payment since 2012 that too for the mistake of  opposite party bank.

14. Further complainant alleged that one opposite party bank manager by name Bhagyalakshmamma has misused the amount of opposite party bank customers and now she is facing criminal charges with respect to the same. Thereafter when complainant visited the opposite party bank and questioned about illegality in respect of loan account and payment schedule the bank evasively answered and tried to avoid. The complaint, for which complainant contended the act of opposite party amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service for which complainant is seeking for the relief of direction and sought compensation.

15. Further opposite party has relied on the ruling rendered by Hon’ble National Readressal Consumer Commission, Delhi which is reported in  CPJ 2014  part 2 page no 196,  in Revision petition no 4535/13  between Rakesh Kumar sharma Vs ICICI Prudentional prudential  Life insurance corporation the guide lines laid down by Hon’ble Commission in its ruling  is as follows:-  Jurisdiction– fraud and cheating – allegation not fit for summary adjudication – proceedings before National Commission essential summary in nature – matter could not be exam by consumer fora and the appropriate forum was civil court. 

16. Further opposite party has relied on the ruling rendered by Hon’ble National Readressal Consumer Commission Delhi. which is reported in CPJ 2016 110(NC), between , Mahesh Kumar Vs AG Motors  Consumer protection Act, 1986 section 21(b)-Jurisdiction-Fraudulent- Treachery- complicated questions of facts and law-Fraudulent act committed by respondent if any cannot be dealt by consumer fora-petitioner is at liberty to approach appropriate judicial forum in accordance with provision of law. In the light of principles is laid down by the Hon’ble National commission in the above ruling the same is applicable to the complaint on hand.

17. Further  as per the allegation of complaint averments and  on perusal facts, documents  produced and also as per the complainant averments made in para 3, 5 there is clear the allegation of misuse of cheque by opposite party bank in respect of multiple account in the name of complainant, as opposite party bank have opened four accounts in his name, the complainant alleged that these multiple accounts is opened without the knowledge of account holder and by using his cheque leaves they have misused his SB account funds. As per the complainant averment, it is also alleged that, one opposite party bank Manager Smt. Bhagyalakshmamma has misused the amount of opposite party bank customer now she is facing criminal charges with respect the same and it is also contented by way of allegation that the opposite party bank withdrawn amount from the complainant SB account by using cheque leaves for which opposite party bank produced copy of cheques in respect of same from these facts and averments , allegation and perusal of number documents produced by the both parties, we held that the issue in the complaint involved mixed question of law and facts which cannot adjudicated in a summary trial. To adjudicate the same a full fledged trial is necessary this will provide an opportunity to both parties to put forth their case with documents. Only after the conclusion of detailed trial issue  in dispute could be disposed  off on merits. When such being the case complaint is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable and complainant is at liberty to approach appropriate judicial forum for adjudication of rights. Hence, the point no 1 we answered in the Negative.

18. Point no.2:- From the above discussion we hereby proceed to pass the following :-

ORDER

1. The complaint is hereby dismissed.
2. Give copies of this order to the parties as per rules.

((Dictated to the stenographer transcribed, typed by her, transcript corrected by us and then pronounced in open court on the   28^th May 2018)  

Shri Thammanna. Y.S.,                                Shri Ramachandra. M.S.,   

       Member.                                                              President.