Delhi

StateCommission

CC/513/2018

ABDUL KALAM - Complainant(s)

Versus

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

ABDUL KALAM

16 May 2018

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

 

Date of Hearing: 16.05.2018

                                                                                                              

                                                                   Date of Decision:18.05.2018

 

 

Complaint No. 513/2018

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

Abdul Kalam,

D-225, Abul Fazal Enclave,

Jamia Nagar,

New Delhi-110025                                                          ….Complainant

                                                                                                                  

 

VERSUS

 

         

1. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.

          Through its Managing Director,

          27 BKC, C-27, G Block, Bandra Kurla

          Complex. Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051,

          Maharashtra, India

2. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.

Through its General Manager,

CIN: L 65 110MH 1985,

PLC 088137, 8^th Floor,

TVH Agnite Park, No. 141,

Old Mahabali Puram Road,

Kandan Chavadi, Chennai-600096, India.

3. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.

Through its Branch Manager,

D-960, New Friends Colony,

New Delhi-110065….Opposite Parties

 

 

         

HON’BLE SH. ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER

 

 1.   Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?            Yes     

 2.   To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                   Yes

 

 

Present:       Complainant present in person

 

PER:           ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (G)

JUDGEMENT

1.           The complainant Sh. Abdul Kalam, Advocate by profession, has filed this complaint before this Commission under Section17 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., hereinafter referred to as opposite parties, praying for relief as under:

 

1. Compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakh only) for suffering of the complainant with shock, disturbance of mind, depression, mental agony and harassment after getting the letter of the bank dated 04.05.2017 on 14.05.2017 with forged Loan Agreement.
2. Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) for legal and litigation expenses in the present case and in the case before ld. A.C.M.M, South East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi.
3. Such other and further relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

 

2.           Facts of the case necessary for the adjudication of the complaint are these.
3.           The gravaman of the complainant is that despite he having made no application for car loan, nor any post dated cheques having been furnished, the Bank, the Opposite Parties, addressed a communication to him on 14.05.2017 intimating that his application for car loan has been accepted and consequently an amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- has been sanctioned and the post dated cheques having already been received, the repayment of the loan through EMI, would commence from 10.05.2017 @ Rs. 11,680/-. According to the complainant his signatures contained in the alleged loan agreement are forged and fabricated. Besides the Co-borrower shown in the agreement namely Sh. Abdul Mujits is totally stranger and unknown to him.
4.           The complainant in response to the said letter issued a legal notice to the Opposite Parties but that could evoke no response. A complaint was also lodged with the police authorities whereafter the OPs responded stating that one Sh. Abdul Mujits had approached them for car loan. The OPs clarified that the letter in question which was otherwise meant for Sh. Abdul Mujits was inadvertently sent to the complainant. The OPs had rectified the error soon thereafter. The complainant has alleged that due to this grave error on the part of the OPs he was subjected to mental agony and harassment and has accordingly prayed for compensation of an amount of Rs. 20 lakhs.
5.           The matter was listed before me for admission hearing on 16.05.2018 when the complainant present in person advanced his arguments. The only argument advanced by the complainant is that due to the negligent act of the Bank he had been subjected to mental harassment, and pressed for the compensation. I have perused the records of the case and given a careful consideration to the subject matter.
6.           In the first instance I note that apparently the complainant does not appear to be a consumer, condition precedent to seek the redressal under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 1986. Section 2(1)(d) of the Act defines as to who is  a consumer. The said provision of the Act posits as under:

 

 

“Consumer” means any person who:

1. Buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any sys tem of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose.
2. [hires or avails of] any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who [hires or avails of] the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person [but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose].

Explanation- For the purposes of this clause, “commercial purpose” does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for.

 

7.           On a bare reading of the said provision of the Act it is noted that there exists the component of consideration within the frame-work of the definition of consumer, which component on scrutiny of the facts of the case is found to be missing and if that be the case he being not a consumer, his remedy does not lie before the Consumer forum under the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
8.           Secondly issues involved in the case require examination and cross examination and appreciation of evidence which may not be possible in the summary procedure undertaken by the Consumer Forum under the scheme of things. The Hon’ble NCDRC in the matter of Bright Transport Co. versus Sangli Sahakari Bank Ltd. reported in II [2012] CPJ 151 (NC) on similar issues was pleased to hold as under:

 

“We must consider the question whether this Commission in exercise of its summary jurisdiction would be able to adjudicate all those issues arising on the complaint in an effective manner. If this Commission ventures to do it, it may have to record the evidence of all those persons whose evidence was collected by the C.B.I. It is only after detailed examination and cross examination of those witnesses and the documentary evidence, i.e., voluminous record involved in the said bank transaction that the Commission may perhaps be able to adjudicate on the said question. We have no hesitation to hold that the complaint indeed raises very complicated question of facts and law which can only be answered by a regular Civil Court and the complainants be relegated to the Civil Court to work out their remedy for the entire claim made by them in the present complaint or this Commission can decide upon the claim in regard to which there is no dispute between the parties.

It also appears to us that filing of the present complaint before this Commission is nothing but an attempt to misuse the jurisdiction of this Commission only with a view to save on the court fee payable in a suit before the Civil Court.”

 

9.           The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Syrco Industries versus SBI as reported in AIR 2002 SC 568 is also pleased to hold as under:

 

“Complicated question of Law involved cannot be decided in summary proceedings under the consumer Protection Act 1986”

 

10. Hence on this account also the complaint is not maintainable.
11. Thirdly, the damages claimed of Rs. 20 Lakhs due to mental agony caused to the complainant owing to the folly done by the Bank issuing letter to the complainant which was otherwise meant for somebody else, appears to be on the higher side more so when the Bank itself has rectified their mistake. It appears that compensation of such a huge amount of Rs. 20 Lakh has been claimed to bring this case within the jurisdiction of this Commission. It is a trite law that exaggerated claim, as is apparently the case, has to be checked.
12. This Commission in the matter of Nishant Rai Andrew versus Delhi Development Authority [C 177/2008] held as under:

 

• In our view the amount claimed in the present complaint is highly exaggerated, whimsical and fanciful and has been claimed with the sole object of invoking the jurisdiction of this Commission. Object of the Consumer Protection Act is not to enrich the Consumers unjustly”

 

13. For all these reasons I am of the considered view that the complaint is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage itself with no order as to cost.
14. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost as statutorily required. File be consigned to record.

 

 

 

                                                                                                              (ANIL SRIVASTAVA) 

                                                                                                              MEMBER (GENERAL)                                                                                                                                

             

•