CC. No. 111/2018

Pooja Chhabra vs. State Bank of India

07/06/2018

ORDER

Poonam Malhotra, Member:

1.         The brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant having a saving bank account with the O.P. bank since 2001.  It is alleged that on 31.01.2018 one Mr. Rajeev, approached the complainant posing himself as a representative of PNB Loan Department on phone and offered to give a loan to her.  Convinced by the talk over phone with Mr. Rajiv the complainant agreed to meet him for discussion of loan formalities.  In the evening of 31.01.2018, one Ms. Meera visited the residence of the complainant and collected some documents, two cancelled cheques and one cheque for bank fees.  On 05.02.2018, the complainant called Mr. Rajiv and Ms. Meera to know about the status of loan application but she could not connect with them.    Apprehending fraud the complainant visited the O.P. Bank from where she got to know from the concerned bank official that her account has been debited by Rs.1,74,000/-  on 01.02.2018 and the cash against the said cheque was given to one Mr. Ankit who submitted a copy of PAN Card without the same being asked for by the Bank Official.  It is alleged that the Branch Manager had shown the cheque to the complainant wherein it was clearly visible that the signature in front of the cheque were appended by the complainant but the signature on the back of the cheque were different.  It is also alleged by the complainant that the amount on the cheque was written from a different pen from that of the payee i.e. Ankit and also from the back of the cheque.  It is further averred that the front of the cheque was filled with blue pen however black pen was used for writing and signing on the back of the cheque.   It is further alleged by the complainant that she did not receive any message for withdrawal of such a big amount from her account.  It is also alleged by the complainant that she has lodged the complaint with the Police against Mr. Rajiv, Ms. Meera, Mr. Ankit. Alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the O.P., the complainant has prayed for directions to the O.P. to refund Rs.1,74,000/- with interest @ 18% p.a., pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental pain and agony and Rs.50,000/- as the cost of the present litigation.  

2.         Arguments were heard on the point of admission at length.  The Forum was not satisfied as to how cause of action for filing the present complaint arose to the complainant.  However, in order to do justice a notice was issued to the O.P. before admitting the present complaint for the production of the cheque involved in this case in original for 04.06.2018.

3.         On 04.06.2018, the Branch Manager Sh. S.C. Rohila appeared in person alongwith the counsel for the O.P. Bank whose vakalatnama was filed on record and produced the cheque in question in original.  On a bare examination of the said cheque, copy of which has been retained on record, it was clearly visible that the signatures of the complainant appended on the front as well as below the endorsement on the back of the cheque were same.  In fact, it is a case where the complainant had handed over a bearer cheque signed by her with an endorsement on the back of cheque to one Ms. Meera as alleged in the complaint, though no documentary evidence of delivery of the said cheque to her has been placed on record.   The counsel for the complainant after viewing the cheque equitably conceded to the fact that neither the OP was deficient in providing services to the complainant nor any malpractice can be attributed to it qua the complainant and no cause of action had arisen to the complainant against the O.P.

4.         With regard to the specific allegations of fraud & cheating made in the pleadings filed by the complainant against the respondent it is pertinent to mention here that the offences of fraud & cheating are not triable by the Consumer Fora as they involves the adjudication of questions of fact which needs examination and cross-examination of witnesses and evaluation of evidence.  These proceedings are summary in nature which are decided on the basis of undisputed documents and affidavits filed in evidence by the parties.  

 5.        In view of the above, no prima facie is made out in the present complaint so as to admit it.  It is accordingly dismissed in limine.

(K.S. MOHI)                       (SUBHASH GUPTA)                  (POONAM MALHOTRA)

   President                                        Member                                        Member