Delhi

New Delhi

CC/268/2014

Rajiv Goel - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. HDFC Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

13 Feb 2020

ORDER

 

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC.268/2014                             Dated:

In the matter of:

              Sh.Rajiv Goel,

              367 A5B,

             Paschim Vihar,

             New Delhi-110063

                           ……..COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

           Branch Manager,

         HDFC   Bank Ltd.,

         Surya Kiran Building,

          KG Marg,

         New Delhi-01.               

  Opposite Party

 

ARUN KUMAR ARYA, PRESIDENT

   ORDER

 

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The brief facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant was a Saving Account holder of OP, OP offered him a credit card and its limit was Rs. 5 lacs.    On 4.12.2013, the complainant received an email from risk control department of HDFC Bank  informing  that there was an attempted transaction of Rs.2,56,011.79 with his credit card and further asked the complainant regarding its confirmation. The complainant immediately informed the Bank officer that the said transaction should not be released. The complainant also wrote a letter dt. 4.12.2013 to the OP bank in this regard but no response was received.  Thereafter, on 7.12.2013, the complainant visited the office of OP but all in vain.   It is further stated that despite issuance of the new credit card the OP failed to deactivate the old card on which the alleged unauthorised transaction was carried out. This act of OP amounts to unfair trade practice causing monitory loss to the complainant, hence this complaint. 

 2.    Complaint has been contested by the OP. In its reply OP stated that the present complaint is not maintainable in the eyes of laws as the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and concealed the material facts.   It is stated that the OP despatched the credit card along with terms and conditions booklet to the complainant. It is further submitted that the aforesaid transactions was incurred due to physical  possession of the credit card.  In the absence of the safe keeping of the credit card by the complainant the OP bank is not liable for the relief claim. It is further stated the present complaint is involves the complicated question of fact, hence this Forum does not have jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present case.

3.     Both the parties have filed their evidences by way of Affidavits.    

 

4.     We have heard the arguments advanced at the Bar and have perused the record.

 

5.     Perusal of the present complaint shows that the case involves the complicated question of facts  on various issues.  The complainant in the present complaint has alleged that the OP bank despite issuance of the new credit card in question failed to deactivate the old one which leads to the fraud in question.  On the other hand, it stated on behalf of OP that the complainant had failed to take reasonable care regarding the credit card in question, hence, OP is not liable to pay the relief claim.   It is very difficult for us to come to the conclusion that whether any forgery or fraud has been played by the OPs with the complainant by not deactivating the credit card in question, the same can be verified by the adducing the evidence which is not possible in the present summary proceedings.  The issues referred herein required elaborate evidence which cannot be dealt in summary proceedings by the District Fora.

6.     It is apparent that the complainant is asking for the relief which require lengthy evidence and cross-examination.  The cross-examination of witness is life blood of legal system.  The trustworthiness of a witness can only be examined in cross-examination.  The Civil Court not being a summary trial court can easily go the root of every problem.  Admittedly, the Consumer Forum deals with the complaint in a summary proceeding, where cases involve a great deal of evidence, the same cannot be adjudicated upon by the Forum & for which the party concerned has to approach the civil court where elaborate procedure including recording of evidence is followed.

7.     In case titled Punjab Lloyd Ltd. Vs Corporate Risks India Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 2 SCC 301, it was held that the complicated question of law should be decided by the regular court. It further held that the decisive test in not the complicated nature of question of fact and law arising for decision. In another case titled LIC & Ors. Vs Surinder Kaur & Ors. Civil Appeal No.5334 or 2006 (Arising or of SLP (c) No.17866 of 2005) decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 01.12.2006, it has been held that complex question of facts cannot be decided by the consumer forum under the Consumer Protection Act and such arises can be subject matter of regular Civil Court.

8.     In view of the above, we are inclined to hold that that the present complaint involves complicated questions of facts as well as law regarding the alleged loss in question.  The issues raised in the present complaint required elaborate oral and documentary evidence and the examination of the witnesses for the proper disposal of the matter.  The proper forum for adjudication of the present complaint is Civil Court.  Consumer Protection Act being the special Act where only summary proceedings are taken up and as such the adjudication of the present complaint is beyond the scope and jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum, hence the present complaint is dismissed with liberty to the complainant to approach the Civil Court as per law. So far as the question of limitation is concerned, complainant can take advantage of the decision rendered in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institution 1995 (3) SCC 583.  

A copy of this order each be sent to both parties free of cost by post.  Orders be also sent to www.confonet.nic.in. File be consigned to record room.

 

Pronounced in open Forum on 13/02/2020.

          

 

(ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

PRESIDENT

(NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                                                        (H M VYAS)

       MEMBER                                                                                                     MEMBER