Delhi

StateCommission

CC-114/2005

SHRI. MEGH RAJ - Complainant(s)

Versus

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK - Opp.Party(s)

20 Aug 2018

ORDER

 IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

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

 

 

Date of Decision: 20.08.2018

 

 

Complaint No.114/2005

 

In the matter of:

 

 

Shri Megh Raj F-89, Sector-41, NOIDA-201301 (UP)

:

Complainant

           

Versus

 

 

Standard Chartered Bank 10-E, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001

:

Opposite Party

 

                            

CORAM :N P KAUSHIK

:

Member (Judicial)

 

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

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

 

 

 

Cases Relied Upon

 

1.         Dhanbir Singh vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority,
III (2012) CPJ 1 (SC), 

2.         Hanuman Prasad vs. The New Indian Insurance Company Ltd. And Others, I (1994) CPJ-I (NC).

3.         State of Karnataka vs. Vishwabharti House Building Cooperative Society Ltd. and others, 2003(1) SCR 397

 

 

 

N P KAUSHIK – MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

 

JUDGEMENT

 

 

1. Admittedly the Complainant Sh. Megh Raj was holding an NRE bank account at Standard Chartered Bank, 10-E, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 (in short OP) in the year 1992.  Complainant was residing at Nigeria.  He was availing the facility of international banking qua the said account.  Grievance of the complainant is that on 17.04.2005 while checking his balance in the account through internet, he found that US $50,000/- stood withdrawn from his account.  The said withdrawal was made on 06.04.2005.   It was not made by any person authorized by him.  Complainant made inquires from the officials of the OP Bank.  He wrote several communications/ emails.  On 12.05.2005 he had a telephonic conversation with the Manager of the OP.  Complainant thereafter came to India to sort out the matter.  He was asked to meet one Mr. Bhaskar Hazara an Officer of the OP Bank on 19.05.2005 in the office of the OP Bank.  During the said meeting, complainant was informed that another request for transfer of another US $10,000/- from the complainant’s account had been received.  The person making request had been impersonating himself as complainant.  Telephone number given by the said person was not the telephone number given by the complainant in the bank records.  After dialing at the said telephone number, it was found that somebody was impersonating as complainant.  Specimen signatures of the complainant did not tally with the signatures given by the impersonator.  Even two sets of signatures given by the impersonator were not tallying with each other.

 

2. Complainant had been following the matter with the OP for reversal of the wrong entry.  OP failed to reverse the said entry.  Hence the present complaint seeking refund of the amount of US$50,000/- alongwith compensation/ damages totaling to Rs.30 lakhs alongwith litigation charges of Rs.50,000/-.

 

3. Defence raised by the OP Bank was that there was a standard procedure for transfer of funds by way of telephonic transfer to another account maintained in another bank in any part of the world.  Contention of the OP bank was that the said transfer had taken place in conformity with the provisions of FEMA.

 

4. OP further submitted that it received an email from the complainant on 23.03.2005 expressing his intention to remit an amount equivalent to US$50,000/-. Person making requests had also sought clarification in respect of the procedure.  In response to the said communication from the said person, OP gave details of the procedure to be followed for transfer of funds.  Now on 24.03.2005 a letter was received by Mr. Bhaskar Hazara of OP Bank, requesting for debit of US$50,000/-.  Proceeds of US$50,000/- were requested to be transferred to Mizuha Bank Akkasaka Mitsuke Branch, Japan by SWIFT, in account No. 1358058318.  OP processed the transaction in terms of the request received from the said person.  OP referred the matter to the handwriting expert after the controversy in question arose.  Handwriting expert vide his opinion dated 30.07.2005 opined that the signatures appearing on the documents were those of the complainant. 

 

5. Besides filing the present complaint in this Commission on 23.07.2005, complainant also filed a Civil Suit in the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi on 07.04.2008.  The said suit was later on transferred to a District Civil Court in Patiala House, New Delhi.  The said suit was decreed vide order dated 29.05.2018.  Court of the Ld. ADJ decreed the suit for a sum of Rs.22,04,0000/- alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of actual payment. 

 

 

6. With the aforesaid spectrum of facts, this Commission is confronted with a question whether the present complaint was still maintainable after adjudication by the District Court, New Delhi.  Ld. Counsel for the complainant Ms. Leena Tuteja, Advocate submitted that the complainant had not sought for the relief of  compensation and damages in the proceedings before the Ld. ADJ.  Ld. Counsel thus submitted that the complainant still could press for the said relief of compensation and damages.  On the contrary Ld. Counsel for the OP Ms. Suchita Sharma Advocate submitted that after the aforesaid decree dated 29.05.2018, OP paid an amount of Rs.42,37,190/- to the complainant in the Civil  Court on 05.07.2018. 

 

7. Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act-1986 provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.  In the case of Dhanbir Singh vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority, III (2012) CPJ 1 (SC), the Apex Court held that there was no provision in the act which bars the filing of complaint by consumer after availing other statutory remedies. It was a case of allotment of plot by HUDA.  Hon’ble Court held that such a person could also avail departmental remedy by way of filing appeal.  In the said case, appeal filed against demand of extension fee had already been rejected by the Administrator, HUDA.  The Apex Court held that National Commission wrongly dismissed revision only on grounds that appeal filed by him was pending before the Administrator.  It further observed that dismissal of departmental appeal could hardly be pressed in service by the Respondent  therein for facilitating the rejection of complaint against levy of excess extension fee and delayed delivery of possession of plot.  In the case of Hanuman Prasad vs. The New Indian Insurance Company Ltd. And Others, I (1994) CPJ-I (NC).  In the said case, insurance company had rejected the claim on the grounds that tractor was not insured (there was a change in the name of the tractor from Escorts to international make in the revenue policy) District Forum had dismissed the complaint observing that a case under Motor Vehicle Act was pending.  State Commission too dismissed the appeal of the complainant.  In the said case the complaint of the complainant was that he had been prevented by the Officers of the insurance company from getting the tractor repaired for a considerable time.  He had to hire international Tractor for his agricultural work and also suffered some loss.  Hon’ble National Commission held that the complaint filed before the District Forum was not in respect of the damages to the tractor but on account of deficiency in service by the insurance company in not allowing the complainant to get the the tractor repaired and finally rejecting his claim.  Thus the Hon’ble National Commission held that the claim in the complaint was based upon totally different cause of action.  

 

8. Ld. Counsel for the complainant heavily relied upon the case of State of Karnataka vs. Vishwabharti House Building Cooperative Society Ltd. and others, 2003(1) SCR 397 Submission of the Ld. Counsel is that the proceedings before this commission could continue despite adjudication by the Civil Court.  I have persued the case of State of Karnataka (supra).  In the said case it was held that when the complaint involved complicated issues requiring recording of evidence of experts,  the consumer had the right to approach the civil court for necessary relief.  Relief claimed in the Civil Suit and the relief claimed in the complaint before the Consumer Forum in the said case were distinct and separate.  Even the prayer made in both the proceedings were different.

 

 

9. Crux of law lies in the case of Hanuman Prasad (supra) as it provides that the claim in the Civil Court as well as the consumer forum could be adjudicated upon simultaneously when these were based upon totally different causes of action.

 

10. Coming to the case in hand, both the matters i.e. one decided by the Civil Court and the other before this commission are based upon the same cause of action.  A fresh adjudication by this Commission or a limited adjudication on the point of compensation and damages would lead to confusion as both the proceedings are based on ‘same cause of action’.  There could be a contradictory decision by this Commission.  Such contradictions have to be avoided by the courts.  Prudence demands this Commission to stay its hands from giving its own findings when the matter has been finally disposed by a Civil Court.

 

11. Complainant had prayed for recovery of the amount wrongly transferred from his account alongwith interest @12% per annum.  Civil Court allowed interest to the tune of 9% per annum.  The said amount alongwith interest was paid by the OP in the said Civil Court proceedings and the same was duly received by the complainant.  Nothing on record suggests that the said amount was received by the complainant without prejudice to his rights and contentions to the prayer clause of the present complaint. 

 

12. Complainant has prayed for damages and compensation.  Grant of 9% per annum of interest by the Civil Court has taken care of the damages and compensation claimed in the present proceedings.  In view of the discussion above I am of the considered opinion that the present complaint does not survive further.  The same is accordingly disposed of.  File be consigned to record room.

 

 

(N P KAUSHIK)

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

(am)