BEFORE: HON’BLE MR. SUBHASH CHANDRA, PRESIDING MEMBER For the Appellant Ms Praveena Gautam, Advocate with Ms Akanksha Tyagi, Advocate For the Respondent Mr Alok Kumar Singh, Advocate (VC) ORDER 1. This First Appeal under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, ‘the Act’) assails the order dated 15.10.2019 of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in complaint no.18 of 2018, allowing the complaint and directing the appellants to pay the respondent a sum of Rs.51,20,791.57 along with interest @ 9% per annum from 25.02.2016 along with compensation of Rs.5.00 lakh for mental agony and Rs.25,000/- towards litigation cost within two months from the date of the order, failing which the same would carry interest @ 9% per annum. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and given careful consideration to the material on record. 3. The relevant facts of this case, in brief, are that the appellant which is a Bank (now merged with Bank of Baroda) had opened a Bank account in respect of the complainant/ respondent on 03.01.2005 in the M I Road Branch of the erstwhile Dena Bank. As the respondent had lost her husband on 30.07.2002 in a road accident, leaving behind the respondent and her daughter and the respondent having remarried on 25.12.2004 to one Lokesh Mishra and an amount of compensation had been received under the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) on 16.11.2006, the account was converted into a joint account with the said Lokesh Mishra on “Either or Survivor” basis. The complainant/ respondent alleges that between 03.01.2005 to 13.11.2014 the amount of Rs.51,20,791.57 was withdrawn by her husband Lokesh Mishra on various occasions from this account since he was an employee of the Dena Bank at the relevant period. It is alleged that the withdrawal was without authority and an FIR was filed on 10.01.2015. Upon enquiry, the Police concluded, on the basis of examination by the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), that conversion of Savings Bank Account to Joint Savings Bank Account was duly signed by the respondent. A final report of the police dated 05.12.2016 concluded that the FIR was based on false averments and a report was filed before the Metropolitan Magistrate. The respondent approached the State Commission alleging deficiency in service by the appellant Bank alleging that the account had been allowed to be operated without authority and therefore, on the basis of fraud. The complaint was disposed of on contest on 15.10.2019 upholding the complaint directing the Bank to refund the amount of Rs.51,20,791.57 along with compensation for mental agony with litigation cost within 2 months failing which, with interest @ 9% per annum. This order is impugned before us. 4. It is the case of the appellant that the State Commission has erred in not appreciating that no oral or documentary evidence had been brought on record to establish any deficiency in service and that the case involved allegations of forgery and therefore complicated questions of facts involving transactions between 2006 to 2014 which could not have been decided in summary proceedings before this Commission. Reliance was placed on the judgment of this Commission in Mittal Education Society vs Indian Overseas Bank, Consumer Complaint no. 646 of 2017 decided on 06.11.2017 MANU/CF/0949/2017, Capital Charitable and Education Society vs Axis Bank Limited Consumer Case no. 269 of 2017 decided on 09.12.2019 MANU/CF/0887/2019 wherein it had been held that where the complaint involves enormous evidence pertaining to fraud and forgery of signatures, the same cannot be decided in summary proceedings before a Consumer Forum. 5. It was also contended that the complaint was barred by time since the respondent filed the Consumer Complaint passed on the last date of cause of action and therefore, as per Section 24 A of the Act, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India vs M/s B S Agricultural Industries 2009 (4) SCC 191, which it had been held that a consumer complaint should not be admitted unless it was sufficiently justified, the delay of two years as per Section 24A of the Act was required to be condoned which had not been done. 6. Per contra, it is contended by the respondent that she had never submitted any application to convert the bank account opened by her on 02.03.2005 with the appellant Bank into a joint account with Lokesh Mishra at any point of time. It is contended that the said Lokesh Mishra had conspired with officials in the Bank, of which he was an employee, and that he operated the account as a joint account without her consent and knowledge. It was alleged that between 03.01.2005 to 13.11.2014 an amount of Rs.51,20,791.57 was withdrawn from the account but she was not informed about any withdrawals from the account which was evidence that the officials of the Bank were in conspiracy with Lokesh Mishra. It was also contended that she had never submitted any letter of application for the issue of an ATM Card in respect of the said account. It was alleged that the ATM was issued in her name through the connivance of Lokesh Mishra who was an influential person in the Bank and no SMS or any intimation was received by her about the change of the SB Account to a Joint Account or any subsequent withdrawals. It is admitted that she was married to Lokesh Mishra. However, it is alleged that he was terminated from service by the Bank in 1987-1993 on account of a fraud committed by him in the Dena Bank Employees Thrift and Credit Society. The impugned order reads as under: In this complaint, the annexure 1 is the document by which the complainant opened her savings Bank account and that the said account was an individual account and not a joint account because the same is having only the photo of the complainant. And in the instruction it ‘self to operate’ is mentioned. Thereafter name of Shri Lokesh Mishra was added and his signature are taken. Annexure 2 is said to be the authority through which Shri Lokesh Mishra was made the joint account holder. The said annexure 2 does not have the signature of the complainant. When the account was opened in the name of the complainant by way of annexure 1, Shri Lokesh Mishra was an introducer and he has introduced himself as Lokesh Mishra, Staff. All other documents are of the transactions by Shri Lokesh Mishra which are annexure 3 to 270. Hence, the complainant neve made Shri Lokesh Mishra a joint account holder of her bank account. She opened saving bank account in single name. Shri Lokesh Mishra is the husband of the complainant and was employed with the opposite party Bank. He has become joint account holder without the consent of the complainant and thereafter kept on withdrawing money from the said account of the complainant. He withdrew a total sum of Rs.51,20,791.57 besides the fact that Shri Lokesh Mishra had no right to do so. Just because Shri Lokesh Mishra is the staff member and the husband of the complainant, does not give him the right to withdraw any money from her bank account. The acts of the banks officials in making payment to Shri Lokesh Mishra from the account of the complainant, is not only deficiency in service but also unfair trade practice. The complainant is entitled to receive aforesaid amount from the opposite party Bank. 7. It is evident from the material on record and the submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties that the issue is whether an account opened by the respondent had been authorised to be operated by her husband Lokesh Mishra in the manner it was done between 2006-2014 and whether the withdrawals as a consequence constituted deficiency in service. 8. The contention of the appellant is that the same was authorised in view of an application having been filed by the respondent along with Lokesh Mishra converting the account from SB Account to Joint Account which could be operated by either the respondent or Lokesh Mishra or survivor. The FIR filed by the respondent was concluded on the basis of the FSL report that the signature itself is of the respondent on the form and was authentic. The same is challenged by the respondent. However, in this case, it is also manifest that withdrawals from the Bank account in question were done over an extended period of 8 years. While the respondent contends that no intimation of the same was provided to her at the time of such withdrawals, it has also not been brought on record by the respondent as to whether she had the Bank account updated from time to time. 9. Be that as it may be, the issue which falls for consideration is whether the Bank was deficient in extending service firstly, by converting the SB account to a Joint Account on “Either or Survivor” basis and thereafter in permitting the withdrawals of various amounts totalling to approximately Rs.52 lakh as alleged by the respondent in collusion with co-conspirators in the bank by her husband Lokesh Mishra. 10. It is manifest that the case involves complicated questions of law and requires leading of evidence pertaining to forgery and fraud which have been held in various judgments to be beyond the scope of Consumer Fora which adjudicate matters under the Consumer Protection Act through summary proceedings. In the instant case, the State Commission has held that the Appellant Bank had committed deficiency in service in allowing the husband of the respondent to operate her account without adjudicating the fundamental issues of whether or not there was any authorisation to do so by the respondent to the said Lokesh Mishra. These are matters which needs to be tried through leading of evidence, examination and cross examination etc., and therefore does not fall within the purview of the State Commission. It is therefore, evident that the State Commission has fallen into error in adjudication of this matter and arriving findings which are challenged before us. Under the issue of the alleged forgery and conspiracy had been decided the adjudication of the Bank being liable for deficiency in service cannot be sustained 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find merit in the contention of the appellant. The appeal is therefore, liable to succeed. It is accordingly ordered. Order of the State Commission is set aside with no order as to cost. 12. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of by this order. | 
