BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.463 of 2015

Date of Instt. 30.10.2015

Date of Decision: 24.10.2017

Chanan Singh S/o Late S. Kartar Singh, aged 70, R/o 84/4, Krishna Nagar, Jalandhar also at 11- Meurants Lane, Glenwood, NSW 2768, Australia.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. State Bank of Patiala, Head Office, The Mall, Patiala (Pb.) through its Managing Director.

2. State Bank of Patiala, Ambedkar Chowk Branch, Jalandhar through its Branch Manager.

3. AGM-1, State Bank of Patiala, Regional Office, Ambedkar Chowk, Jalandhar.

4. State Bank of Patiala, CCPC Branch, Mumbai, through its Branch Manager.

….… Opposite parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)

Sh. Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh. Parminder Singh, Adv Counsel for the complainant.

Sh. YV Rishi, Adv Counsel for the OP No.1 to 4.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. The instant complaint is presented by the complainant, wherein alleged that the OPs are engaged in the business of providing services for banking and publicize themselves as the India's largest Public Sector Bank, which is built on a legacy of delivering excellence because of the industry knowledge, world class infrastructure and comprehensive services package consisting of banking, investment services.

2. That the complainant is an NRI, now residing at 84/4 Krishna Nagar, Jalandhar and permanent resident of 11 Meurants Lane, Glenwood, NSW 2768 Australia. The complainant is a client of OPs and having a saving bank account No.55036530358 at Ambedkar Chowk, Branch Jalandhar of OPs i.e. OP No.2. The complainant sent a crossed cheque bearing No.931971 dated 02.06.2014 drawn on State Bank of Patiala, Ambedkar Chowk Branch, Jalandhar to deposit in his own account at State Bank of India, Lodowal Branch, Ludhiana mentioing his own name and account number as payee for amount of Rs.90,000/-. The above said cheque sent by post from Australia. Photocopy of cheque bearing number 931971 dated 02.06.2014 received from OP No.2 is annexure-2.

3. That after few days, the complainant got information that the above said cheque is debited but the same was not credited in his own account, same was credited in some other unknown account at Mumbai. The cheque was forged and wrongly debited to the account of the complainant, after inquiry complainant came to know the cheque is wrongly credited in account of some Rajesh Sahdev Nanik by forging and fabricating the cheque. No action was taken by the said bank manager and he never preferred to register FIR to safeguard the interest of the complainant after receiving information from the complainant and moving written complaints by the complainant. Therefore, the employees of the OPs have not only committed crime they also caused monetary loss to the complainant by doing misappropriation of funds of the complainant. The cheque was firstly stolen and tempered and then the bank officials in criminal conspiracy cleared the forged and fabricated cheque on the name of Rajesh Sahdev Nanik and credited the amount in his account in connivance with each other. It shows the clear involvement of OPs in causing financial loss to the complainant. The complainant sent so many emails to OPs. Especially intimated by a registered post to the manager, State Bank of Patiala, Ambedkar Chowk, Jalandhar with regard to fraud, forgery and cheating with him by some bank officials of OPs in order to causing wrongful loss to him and got debited Rs.90,000/- by illegal means. Concerned bank officials did not co-operate with the complainant and humiliated him by saying to go to police and get lodged his complaint. The complainant has not issued any cheque to Rajesh Sahdev and does not know Rajesh Sahdev. The complainant was compelled to come to India to pursue his complaint and claim. The complainant requested so many times to the OP No.2 and 3 to call the original cheque leaf from the Bank of Baroda, Dombiveli (East), Maharastra, but they did not respond to his request and made excuses on one pretext or the other. The people, who committed crime are bank officials of OPs in both the banks i.e. Bank of Baroda and State Bank of Patiala, they have links with higher police officials and complainant found in his personal inquiry that one of them is working in clearing department of SBOP Branch, Mumbai.

4. Then the complainant came to India just to recover his amount and when he visited Ambedkar Chowk, Branch of OPs, Branch Manager not only insulted him but also pulled him out from branch, also mis-behaved him in front of public present in bank, he tore up complaint of the complainant and refused to act on complaint made by the complainant. Officials of OPs acted in manner to cause loss to the complainant intentionally. The complainant then moved complaints to Local Police and other authorities after receiving continuous threats of Bank Manager Mr. BC Kaler, Branch Manager, SBOP, Ambedkar Chowk, Jalandhar, who has definite involvement in present case and the complainant has apprehension that OP No.2 manager and his associates will cause some harm to him. That the complainant visited the head office of the OPs at Patiala on next date and met officials there and they referred the matter to OP No.3 for investigation of the matter after moving complaint against bank manager and negligence of bank officials in clearing disputed cheque, but OP No.3 refused to rectify their error, negligence and told the complainant that the disputed cheque is cleared and credited in the account, so, no amount can be remitted to the complainant and OP No.3 not only flatly refused to apologize for their bank's negligence, deficiency in services and for harassment caused to the complainant, OP also refused to show original copy of disputed cheque. It is pertinent to mention here that even no reply is made by the OPs to the complainant for complaints made to the OPs by emails and registered post. Thereafter, the complainant knocked the doors of the police at P.S. NRI, Jalandhar and got registered a criminal case. The OPs not only committed gross negligence, deficiency in service as well as caused huge financial loss, mental agony, harassment and insulted the complainant and as such, the instant complaint was filed with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to pay a sum of Rs.90,000/- cheque amount to the complainant drawn from his bank account due to involvement of clearing staff in causing financial loss to the complainant alongwith interest @ 24% per annum and further OPs be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and for causing mental tension and harassment and further OPs be directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.5000/- and also be directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- which are incurred as expenses on air ticket in lieu of traveling by the complainant from Australia to India.

5. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly all the OPs appeared through their counsel and filed written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objection that the complainant has alleged theft, cheating, forgery of his cheque for which he had filed FIR No.140 dated 14.11.2014 with the police authorities at Police Station No.4, Jalandhar and the police department is making necessary investigation and the complaint is premature and further alleged that the dispute raised by the complainant involves adjudication upon most complicated matters of facts and law and it requires consideration of voluminous evidence and decision over compacted issues of facts and law as such, the complaint cannot be tried, adjudicated and decided by this Forum in a summary manner as prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act and further submitted that the complaints, which are based on allegations of fraud, forgery etc. and trial of which would require voluminous documentary and oral evidence including cross-examination of various witnesses and experts, cannot be decided by a Consumer Fora in its summary jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and in support of this plea, the OP has referred a judgment of Hon'ble National Commission cited in 2012(2) CPJ, title “Bright Transport Co. Vs. Sangli Sahkari Bank Ltd” and further submitted that the complaint is false, malicious, incorrect and malafide, therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed and further averred that the complainant has suppressed the material facts from the Forum and therefore, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed. On merits, the factum in regard to the account of the complainant in the State Bank of Patiala is reply in the manner that it is a matter of record, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly prayed that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.

6. In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant himself tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith some documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C55 and closed the evidence.

7. Similarly, counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP-A alongwith some documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP7 and closed the evidence.

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.

9. Before imparting, on merit of the case, we like to discuss an other legal aspect in regard to maintenance of the complaint before this Forum, as the complainant himself took a plea that a fraud and forgery as well as cheating has been committed by some bank official with the complainant. From the face of the complaint as alleged in para No.6 of the complaint, the complainant stated that the bank manager as well as official of the OP bank committed a fraud, forgery and cheating with the complainant and got debited Rs.90,000/- by illegal means by forgering the said cheque and regarding that a criminal case has been also got registered by the complainant as described in the para No.10 of the complaint that he reported the matter to NRI Commissioner Police and accordingly, a case FIR No.140 dated 14.11.2014 at Police Station Division No.4, Jalandhar registered under Sections 379/420/465/468/471/120-B and during investigation in Forensic report forgery found on question cheque. So, it is clear that the complainant himself took a plea of forgery, cheating and fraud and as such, we are of the considered opinion that whenever such like plea is taken by the complainant, then complaint is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum because like this case, voluminous documentary and oral evidence including cross-examination of various witness and expert evidence is required in like that case, but the said type of the evidence cannot be adduced before the Consumer Forum, where the procedure is adopted as a summary procedure. So, accordingly, in order to give a strength to our above observation, we like to refer a pronouncement of Hon'ble National Commission, cited in 1996(I) CPJ 332 (NC), title “Satish Mehra Vs. Canara Bank”, wherein hold by the Hon'ble National Commission as under:-

“Complainant alleges that the bank is grossly negligent in renewing FCNR illegally at the instance of an unauthorized person, complainant has also filed FIR and a case has been registered and there are allegations of forgery and cheating, whether such case can be decided under CPA-No.”

On the similar point, we further like to refer an other pronouncement of Hon'ble National Commission, cited in 2012(II) CPJ 151 (NC), title “Bright Transport Co. Vs. Sangli Sahakari Bank Ltd.”, wherein his Lordship held as under:-

“Complainants which are based on allegations of fraud, forgery, etc. and trial of which would require voluminous evidence and consideration are not to be entertained by this Commission, this complaint is an attempt to misuse jurisdiction of this Commission only with a view to save on Court fee payable in a suit before Civil Court, complaint not maintainable.”

We further like to refer an other pronouncement of Hon'ble National Commission, cited in 2015(II) CPJ 54 (NC), title “P.N. Khanna Vs. Bank of India”, wherein his Lordship held as under:-

“Jurisdiction, forged, cheque, clerance by bank, allegations of theft, forgery adjudication whereof requires elaborate evidence, cannot be decided by Consumer Fora, complaint dismissed.”

We further like to refer an other pronouncement of Hon'ble National Commission, cited in 2015(3) CPR (NC) 151, title Umesh Ohri Vs. ICICI Bank Ltd. & Another”, wherein his Lordship held as under:-

“There were serious allegations of forgery and cheating in complaint filed by the petitioner, Consumer Forum which follows summary procedure for deciding complaints filed before it, is not a proper forum to adjudicate on such serious allegations of forgery, fraud and cheating, revision petition dismissed.”

10. If, we see the case of the complainant in the light of above judgments, then we can say without any hesitation that the instant complaint of the complainant is not maintainable before this Forum and therefore, the same is dismissed with no order of cost and with the liberty to the complainant to file the case before an appropriate Court. Parties will bear their own cost. The complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

11. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Karnail Singh

24.10.2017 Member President