The present consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, i.e., the State Bank of Patiala (in short, ‘the Bank’).

2.     The facts, in brief, as per the complainant, are that the complainant was maintaining a saving’s bank (SB) account no.10001670775 (old no. 01190008706) with Pusa Road Branch (previously at Rajendra Place) New Delhi of the opposite party Bank. The complainant states that she got married on 15.04.2000 and soon after that left for USA and visited India only occasionally.  On 27.01.2009, when she visited the Branch of the opposite party at Pusa Road to operate her saving’s bank account. She was shocked to note that there was a meager balance of Rs.10,223.43 in the SB account and that in her absence the said bank account had been operated frequently and unauthorisedly and a substantial amount withdrawn illegally. The complainant directed the Bank to stop the operation of the said SB Account and requested for a statement of account and inspection of cheques.  It is stated that the opposite party failed to provide complete information about the operation of the Bank account of the complainant by 27.01.2009. As advised by the Bank, the complainant applied for the relevant copies of the documents pertaining to her SB Account. She also applied for the inspection of the documents. The complainant alleges that the account was misused by certain persons of the bank under the forged signature of the complainant. The complainant states that though cheque leaves were made available to her, the cheques contain forged signatures of the complainant. During the period of the alleged transactions, the complainant was in USA. The complainant further states that on coming to know about the irregularities in the operation of the said bank account she sought information from the Bank. However, the Bank delayed disclosing the account information and  was harassed in her attempts to obtain details. The complainant further alleges that the Bank issued two cheque books under the forged signatures of the complainant, including one containing leaves from 306841 to 306860 which was delivered on 12.05.2006. The opposite party was aware that the complainant was at USA.  The complainant states that the opposite party Bank issued two cheque books under forged signatures of the complainant and also allowed unauthorised persons to withdraw amounts based upon said cheque leaves. She also alleges that the bank failed to provide the particulars of the second cheque book which was delivered in her absence. The complainant further alleges that the opposite party fraudulently transferred an amount of Rs.50,000/- in favour of one Smt Anju Wadhwa. Due to this fraudulent act and cheating of the opposite party Bank, the complainant has suffered severe financial loss, harassment, and mental and physical torture.

3.     On coming to know about the misdeeds committed by the opposite party/Bank, the complainant lodged FIR no.164 of 2009 with the Economic Offences Wing (EOW), Crime Branch, New Delhi which matter is still pending. The complainant alleges that the opposite party fraudulently withdrew an amount of Rs.1,26,43,000/- from her SB Account. Hence, the complainant has filed this present consumer complaint before this Commission with the following prayer:

1. To hold and declare the opposite party guilty of deficiency in service and negligence as per the provisions of the said Act;
2. To direct the opposite party to reimburse, refund an amount of Rs.1,26,43,000/- with 18% interest per annum to the complainant being the amount lost by the complainant on account of deficiency/ negligence in the service attributable to the opposite party;
3. To direct the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.10 crores towards costs, compensation, mental and physical agony, inconvenience, harassment, defamation and penalty payable by them to the complainant;
4. For such other or further/ reliefs which this Hon’ble Commission deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the complainant in the interest of justice.

4.     The complaint was resisted by way of reply by the opposite party. The opposite party has stated that the complaint is not maintainable as no cause of action arose in favour of the complainant. Further, the complaint is not maintainable in as much as the same is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The opposite party further states that all the cheques were issued in favour of her husband Shri Amit Wadhwa or her husband’s family members or the companies/ partnership concerns which are run/managed by the complainant’s husband or other family members. The opposite party further states that the alleged case pertains to the period 2002 to 2009. It further states that the complainant did not correspond or communicate with the opposite party for eight years. The opposite party alleges that the complainant on her visit to the Bank on 27.01.2009 for the first time raised a suspicion that her account with the opposite party had been misused by her husband or his family members by forging her signatures on the cheques. The opposite party further states that the present complaint has been filed by the complainant due to matrimonial disputes between the complainant and her husband. Opposite party has further stated that an FIR has been registered with the Economic Offence Wing and the same is still pending investigation.

5.     Parties led their evidence by way of affidavit and filed their written synopsis or arguments. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have given careful consideration of the materials on record.

6.     Learned counsel for the opposite party states that the present complaint is not maintainable due to criminal investigations under way and this Commission’s summary proceedings.  Learned counsel for the complainant has stated that the complainant had authorised one Shri K K Chopra to take one cheque book from the Bank on behalf of the complainant. The bank issued the cheque book with cheques bearing serial nos.247261 to 247280. Learned counsel for the complainant admits that the complainant had signed 15 cheque leaves i.e., 247261 to 247275 and kept them in her safe custody, i.e., almirah locker prior to her departure to USA. However, it is submitted that while the complainant was in USA, 44 cheques were cleared by the opposite party. It is admitted that of the 44 cheques, 15 cheques were signed by the complainant and the balance 29 cheques had forged/ fabricated signatures of the complainant.  Learned counsel for the complainant further states that these 29 cheques belong to three different cheque books and out of these three cheque books, two cheque books were issued on forged and fabricated requisition slips.  Learned counsel also states that the Bank had issued two cheque books to one Mr Kishan Jha on the basis of requisition slips that were forged/ fabricated. He further states that the opposite party also debited Rs.50,000/- from the account of the complainant on the basis of an unsigned voucher. He further states that GNCTD FSL report indicates forged and fabricated signatures were in favour of the complainant. Learned counsel for the complainant has also relied upon the following judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the National Commission:

(i)     Arun Bhatiya vs HDFC Bank and Ors. Civil Appeal nos. 5204-5205 of 2022 (arising out of SLP (C ) nos. 29765-29766 of 2019 decided on 08.08.2022;

(ii)    State Bank of India vs Jamnagar Jilla, decided by NCDRC on 23.03.2022 in RP No.3992 of 2010; and

(iii)    Sunil Kumar Maity vs State Bank of India and Anr. Civil Appeal no. 432 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) no. 21711 of 2019)

7.     Learned counsel for the opposite party stated that the National Commission lacks jurisdiction to decide the case, as the present complaint relates to the complainant’s claim of alleged forgery of cheques by her husband and other family members. He further states that an FIR has been lodged with the EOW and the EOW had seized all the original documents relating to the SB Account of the complainant including the original account opening form, all disputed cheques and original requisition slip etc. Learned counsel for the opposite party states that as a criminal case has been set in motion, the Consumer Courts are barred from entertaining such consumer cases. He has relied upon the judgment of the National Commission in the case of Oriental Bank of Commerce vs M/s Shankar Chawal Udyog and Ors., 2014 SCC Online NCDRC 193 where in it was held that:

“As there was allegation of forgery in the complaint and criminal case was also pending before the Court, learned District Forum should have dismissed the complaint and directed complainant to approach to the Civil Court for redressal of his grievances and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing the appeal and revision petition is to be allowed.”

8.      On behalf of the opposite party it was submitted that admittedly the cheques were issued in favour of complainant’s husband, Amit Wadhawa or her husband’s family members or the companies/partnership concerns which are being run/ managed by the complainant’s husband or his other family members. He further states that the cheques pertain to the period 2002 to 2009. During the period of eight years, the complainant had not corresponded with or communicated to the opposite party regarding misuse of her account. It is also stated that the complainant never operated the account nor intimated the opposite party that the complainant was proceeding to USA or anywhere out of station. Between 2002 to 2009 the complainant operated the said account and during the said period the complainant never raised any issue of unauthorised withdrawal. He further states that the complainant cannot be referred to as a “consumer” since she is only a customer and has never paid for the services availed from the opposite party/Bank. Learned counsel for the opposite party further alleges that it is a matrimonial dispute between the complainant and her husband. He has further stated that forensic examination report has concluded that certain disputed signatures were authored by the complainant and qua other disputed signatures, the report is inconclusive. He has also relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the National Commission in this regard:

(i)     Citimake Builders Pvt. Ltd., vs Samata Sahakari Bank Ltd., (2012) NCDRC 743;

(ii)    UCO Bank vs S D Wadhwa, in RP No. 2479 of 2008 dated 25.07.2013;

(iii)    Mittal Education Society vs Indian Overseas Bank, 2017 SCC Online NCDRC 1862; and

(iv )   Oriental Bank of Commerce vs Shankar Chawal Udyog Prop.

        Ravi Kumar Agarwal – 2014 SCC Online NCRDC 193

9.     From the above, it is manifest that there were 44 cheques pertaining to 3 cheque books which were encashed for varying amounts between 2002 to 2009. It is contended by the complainant that only 29 cheques which were in her possession were kept in safe custody duly signed. No reasons to justify why blank signed cheques were kept in a locker when she was proceeding abroad to USA are provided. No reasons are also provided as to why between 2002-2009, this matter was not taken up with the opposite party/ Bank. No details of her visits to India during this period are also highlighted or whether during this period she visited the Bank. As per the complaint, she learnt of the cheques being encashed only on 27.01.2009.

10.   Be that as it may be, it is evident that there are 44 cheques which are disputed by the complainant, including 29 from 3 different cheque books, 2 of which were issued on requisition slip that are disputed by the complainant. An FIR has been lodged by the complainant with the Economic Offence Wing of the Delhi policy which is under investigation. As admitted by the opposite party, all records have been seized by them. The current status of the FIR has not been brought on record. During arguments it was admitted by the counsel for the complainant that the FIR was yet to be finalised and that neither a closure report nor a charge sheet has been filed.

11.   The matter clearly has issues of a criminal nature involved warranting a proper investigation under the relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code. Such issues cannot be deal with under the Consumer Protection Act or in a Consumer Court which is required to dispose of matters through summary proceedings. A matter of forgery of cheques and requisition slips cannot be dealt with in this Commission for this reason. A consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Bank cannot be adjudicated until the nature of deficiency is prima facie established. As is manifest in the instant matter, until the FIR before the EOW, Delhi Police get finalised and the charge sheet before the appropriate court of law is finalised, it would not be possible for this Commission to adjudicate the matter.

12.   For the foregoing reasons, this complaint is dismissed as being infructuous at this stage with liberty to the complainant to approach this Commission appropriately as and when there is an order establishing the liability of the opposite party in order for the prayer to be considered and adjudicated as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.