ORDER

Per : Md. Shamim Akhtar, Judicial Member

Dated- 10.04.2024

1. The appellant has filed the  appeal against the order dated 13.08.2019 passed by the Learned District  Consumer Forum,  Bhojpur, Ara in  complaint case no- 88 of 2013 by which the case  of the Appellant/complainant was dismissed for want  of jurisdiction with liberty to take shelter of appropriate court to decide the question.
2. The case of the Appellant/complainant in brief  as stated in his memo of appeal is that the  Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank  was previously known as Bhojpur-Rohtas Gramin Bank and the case of the  complainant before the Learned District Forum was that he has a   savings account no- 7441 in the Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank and on 20.11.2002 the O.P. no-2 denied the complainant to withdraw his money on the  ground that the  withdrawal facility  had been stopped on the  instruction of Punjab National Bank (Opposite—parties). Further case  is that the  complainant approached the Punjab National Bank also but no reason  was  conveyed and thereafter the  complainant approached the Bhojpur (Ara) District Office of the All India  Consumers Panchayat but the opposite-parties and the Punjab National Bank did not allow the complainant to withdraw his money despite the notice of the Panchayat. Being aggrieved the complainant filed complaint case no- 07 of 2003 before the Learned District Forum, Bhojpur which was  dismissed vide order dated 20.05.2003 on the basis of the  allegations of the opposite-parties that the complainant  had been  indulged in fraudulent  withdrawal of money from Punjab National Bank and  that the amount under the savings account with the Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank was the same money and in the meantime the Punjab National Bank lodged  a criminal case against the complainant  bearing  Narayanpur P.S. Case no- 10 of 2004.
3. Further case is t hat  the complainant preferred F.A. no- 236/2003 against the order dated 20.05.2003 passed by the Learned District Consumer Forum, Bhojpur,Ara before this State Commission but the said F.A. n.- 236/2003 was also dismissed vide order dated 12.10.2004 and  against the order dated 12.10.2004 passed by the State Commission the complainant preferred Revision Petition no.- 3318 of 2004 before the Hon’ble National Commission, New  Delhi which was  also dismissed  holding  therein  that since the petitioner was guilty of playing fraud so the Respondent was  not obliged or duty  bound to honour the cheque submitted by  the petitioner.
4. Further case  is that Narayanpur P.S. Case no.- 10/2004 lodged by the  Punjab National Bank has been resulted in acquittal for want of evidence vide judgment dated 26.03.2012  and  the same has not been challenged in  appeal by the Bank and despite this   opposite-parties did not allow the complainant to withdraw his money and hence the complainant filed complaint case  no- 88 of 2013 against  the opposite-parties for deficiency in service and on other grounds.
5. As it appears from page 70  of the paper book that both the opposite-parties in complaint case no- 88 of 2013 filed by the complainant appeared and filed their written statement in which they have  taken many  grounds such as limitation, resjudicata and also stated that in fact the complainant had  made fraud of about Rs. 5205000/- in which Baban  Singh,Ram Babu, Binod Kumar and others  were involved  with the complainant and in this connection the complainant  was also a  guarantor  of one Ajay Kumar  Singh Son  of Ved Prakash Shastri  and  he made forgery in the documents  and in the geonology it was  written  that Ved Prakash Shastri  is dead  whereas he was alive and on complaint made by some loanee a vigilance enquiry was conducted and it was  found that a   “ Ghotala” about of Rs. 5205000/- has been committed by the complainant with  the help of  others which is evident from the Bank account  of the complainant and the Bank has also taken action and has dismissed  the then Manger and Dy. Manger  of the Bank and in such  situation  for the safe guard of the public money the  operation of  account no.- 543 of the complainant was stopped. The opposite-parties have also   asserted that  there is no deficiency  in service on their part and in the  circumstances of the   case  the present complaint so filed  is not maintainable and the complaint  has  no cause of action and the complaint is liable to be dismissed  with costs.
6.  After hearing the parties the Learned District Consumer Forum, Bhojpur dismissed the complaint no- 88 of 2013 by the impugned order dated 13.08.2019.
7. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order the Appellant/complainant has preferred this appeal o n the grounds that the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and bad in law and the   Learned District Consumer Forum has failed  to appreciate that the claim of the complainant is genuine and the  case  should have been  decided on merit.  Further grounds are that the Learned  Forum has failed to appreciate that the opposite-parties have committed deficiency in service and the Learned  Forum has  failed to appreciate that the money deposited in the Bank account was hard  earned money of the complainant out of his  business activities and not commission etc for issuance of KCC from Punjab National  Bank. Further grounds  are that the Learned  Forum has failed to appreciate that the Narayanpur P.S. Case no- 10/2004 has failed for  want of  evidence and the complainant has been acquitted by the competent court  and the  Learned Forum has also  failed to  appreciate that copy of deposition of Ajay Kumar Singh was available on the records of the case as  Annexure-16 in which the said witness had  deposed that the  complainant Kamta Prasad Singh had nothing to  do  with his KCC Loan  Account and the complainant had never approached him for KCC account. Further  grounds  are  that the deed  of guarantee produced by  the opposite-parties does not  bear his signature and the same is manufactured and  the Learned Forum has erred in holding  that the complaint involves complex question of law which is not maintainable in summary proceeding and the denial of signature is not a complex question of law and  such questions are being decided by fora now a days on the basis of expert opinion of handwriting experts and in place of calling for expert opinion  the Learned Forum dismissed the complaint as not maintainable. It is also the  ground that  the Learned Forum should have allowed  the complaint with cost and compensation as  the claims of the complainant  are genuine  and reasonable and the complainant is still suffering  huge loss  and injury  due to deficiency  on the  part of the opposite-parties  and  for that the  impugned order  is  fit  to be set aside. Prayer is made to allow the appeal.
8.  We have heard learned counsels for both the sides.
9. At the time of argument  the  learned counsel for the Appellant reiterated  the  grounds in the memo of appeal and also submitted that  today he has  filed an  affidavit sworn by one  Ajay Kumar Singh in which  he has stated that he is  an accused in Narayanpur P.S. Case no- 20/2005 which is  pending before Civil Court, Ara and he has  reached an agreement with the  Bank for payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- in three installments  and he  has paid two installments and will pay the last installment on 24.05.2024. Prayer is made to allow the appeal.
10.    On the other hand it were mainly submitted on behalf of the Respondents that the Appellant is raising  the same matter again and again which  has  already been set at rest and the impugned order does not    require  any  interference and prayer was made  to dismiss the appeal.
11.  Also perused the records including the respective    written notes of argument filed by the   parties.
12.  Appellant/complainant earlier filed complaint case no- 07/2003and lost his case up to the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi. Fresh ground taken for filing the complaint case no- 88/2013 is that he has been acquitted in Narayanpur P.S. Case no- 10/2004 by the court as per judgment dated 26.03.2012.Acquittal in the criminal case does not absolve the Appellant/complainant from his liabilities towards the Respondents Bank. From the respective pleadings of the parties it appears that it is a  complex question of  fact and law and it cannot be   determined in a  summary proceeding  under the Consumer Protection Act. We do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order in arriving the findings. The appeal   has no merit and is dismissed accordingly. No costs.
13.    A copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The order be uploaded forthwith on the confonet of the State Commission.

Let the file be consigned in the record room along with copy of this order.

(Md. Shamim Akhtar)                                                                                         (Gita Verma)

Jud. Member                                                                                                       Jud. Member

Anita