BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.691/2014

DATED ON THIS THE 19^th August 2016

      Present:  1) Sri. H.M.Shivakumara Swamy

B.A., LLB., - PRESIDENT   

    2) Smt. M.V.Bharathi                    

                                   B.Sc., LLB., -  MEMBER

                     3) Sri. Devakumar.M.C.                  

                                                          B.E., LLB.,    - MEMBER

Sri Devakumar.M.C.

Member

1.     The complainant has filed the complaint under section 12 of the C.P.Act, 1986, against the opposite parties, alleging deficiency in service and seeking refund of Rs.8,01,251/- fraudulently drawn from his account by the opposite parties and Rs.10,00,000/- compensation along with interest at 24% p.a. for causing mental agony and deficiency in service and for adopting unfair trade practice with such other reliefs.
2.     The complainant has an O.D. Account with opposite party No.1.  On verification of the statement of accounts, the complainant found that, a total sum of Rs.8,01,251/- has been withdrawn from his account by utilising the three blank cheques signed by him, which were deposited with opposite party No.1, at the time of availing housing loan.  A legal notice caused on 11.11.2013 demanding refund of the amount fraudulently drawn with interest at 15% p.a. The opposite party No.1 failed to reply nor refund the amount.  Thereafter, the complainant registered a complaint with the jurisdictional police against opposite party No.1, which is pending for adjudication.  Hence, the complaint, seeking reliefs.
3.     The opposite parties submits that the complaint is not maintainable on the principles of rejudicata, for the reasons, filing of a similar complaint against the opposite parties before the Hon’ble District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Mandya in C.c.No.95/2013 and the same was disposed off on 28.10.2013.  The opposite party submits, the complainant had operated the O.D. credit for a period of one year and closed the same on 19.02.2008.  It denies the allegation of denial of the statement of account to the complainant.  The opposite party No.1 denies the request letter dated 20.11.2007 calling upon to furnish certain documents and also acknowledgement to that effect.
4.     Opposite party submits, it has no such practice of receiving blank signed cheques and its records does not disclose the receipt of the same.  Further denies the allegation withdrawing the amount from the account, by misusing the complainant’s signed blank cheques.  The opposite party admits the registration of a criminal complaint before the Kuvempunagar Police.  It is alleged that, the complainant forged and concocted the documents for unlawful gain.  The opposite party No.1 has filed a suit before court of law for the recovery of Rs.33,00,000/- as such, the complainant and her husband indulged in filing complaint to drag on the proceedings.  Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint against it.
5.     The complainant and the opposite party filed their affidavit in lieu of evidence and relied on documents.  Both parties filed written argument.  Heard, the counsels and on perusing the material, matter posted for orders.
6.     The points arose for our consideration are:-

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable?
2. Whether the complainant established the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party in non-refund of the amount fraudulently withdrawn by utilising the blank signed cheques, deposited towards availing O.D. credit facilities and thereby, she is entitled for the reliefs sought?
3.  What order?

7.    Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :- In the negative.

Point No.2 :- Does not call for discussion.

Point No.3 :- As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

8.    Point No.1:- The complainant has filed the complaint bearing C.C.No.95/2013, against the opposite parties, before the Hon’ble District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, at Mandya, alleging not providing the Statement of Accounts for the period 16.09.2007 to 19.07.2013, as deficiency in service.  Same came to disposed off by dismissing the complaint on 28.10.2013.
9.    Subsequently, the complainant has filed the present complaint against the same opposite parties, with different allegation of misuse of the blank signed cheques and fraudulent withdrawal of a total sum of Rs.8,01,251/- from her account and non-refund of the same as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice committed by the opposite parties and sought for the reliefs.
10. Though the complainant pleaded that she has submitted 3 numbers blank signed cheques to the opposite party bank, as demanded by opposite party No.1, to sanction the loan for construction of her house, but failed to establish the cheque leaves bearing No.572753, 572754 and 572752 were submitted to the bank.  The statement of accounts reveals the withdrawal of the amount by Subramanya on 23.11.2007 using cheque No.572753 and by Chandrashekar on 24.11.2007 using cheques bearing Nos.572752 and 572754.  In absence of the cogent evidence to show that, the opposite party No.1 bank officials have misused the cheques and withdrawn amount from complainant’s account, we opine the allegations are false and baseless.
11. Further, the complainant never pleaded in her complaint nor in her affidavit relating to the suit filed by the opposite party, pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Bangalore and numbered as OA 111/2011, for the recovery of more than Rs.33,00,000/-.  Thereby, the attitude of the complainant rises doubt, relating to the withdrawal of the amount using the above said cheques.
12. Further, in view of the complaint lodged and registering a case in crime No.42/2014 for the offences punishable under section 409 and 420 of Cr.P.C. pending for trial before the competent court, we are of the opinion that, the present complaint is not maintainable against opposite party No.1.  As such, the complainant is not entitled for any reliefs and the complaint is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable.
13. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in the Negative.
14. Point No.2:- In view of the above discussions, this point does not calls for discussion.   
15. Point No.3:- From the above, we proceed to pass the following

:: O R D E R ::

1. The complaint is dismissed as not maintainable.
2. Give the 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 this the 19^th August 2016)