BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Complaint  Case  No : 366 of 2010

Date of Institution :  17.06.2010

Date of  Decision   :  12.05.2011

Amrik Singh s/o Late Sh. Babu Singh, R/o House Near Master Bhag Singh, Ward No.2, Ghumar Mohalla, Khamano, District Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab.

….…Complainant

V E R S U S

1]   The Chandigarh SBI Madhya Marg Branch Employees’ Co-op. Urban Salary Earners Thrifts & Credit Society Limited, Chandigarh, Zonal Office, State Bank of India, Near K.C. Theatre, Sector 17, Chandigarh, through its President – Sh. Balram Aggarwal.

2]   Sh. Balram Aggarwal (President)

     1^st Address:-

     The Chandigarh SBI Madhya Marg Branch Employees’ Co-op. Urban Salary Earners Thrifts & Credit Society Limited, Chandigarh, Zonal Office, State Bank of India, Near K.C. Theatre, Sector 17, Chandigarh.

     2^nd Address:-

     State Bank of India, SCO No. 36, Sector 18-D, Chandigarh.

     3^rd Address:-

     R/o H.No. 3068, Sector 27-D, Chandigarh.

3]   Sh. V.P. Khanna (Cashier).

     1^st Address:-

     The Chandigarh SBI Madhya Marg Branch Employees’ Co-op. Urban Salary Earners Thrifts & Credit Society Limited, Chandigarh, Zonal Office, State Bank of India, Near K.C. Theatre, Sector 17, Chandigarh.

     2^nd Address:-

     R/o H.No. 2063, Sector 19-C, Chandigarh.

.…..Opposite Parties

CORAM:   Sh.P.D. GOEL                    PRESIDENT

SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL          MEMBER

            DR.(MRS).MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA       MEMBER

Argued by: Sh. Karambir Singh Chawla, Counsel for Complainant.

Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for OPs.

PER P.D. GOEL, PRESIDENT

           The Complainant had invested an amount of `1,00,000/-, out of his hard earned money with the OP No.1 Society, vide Fixed Deposit Receipt [FDR] No. 7935, dated 11.3.2002. The maturity value of `2,00,000/- was assured to be paid on the due date i.e. 11.03.2009. Immediately, after the said maturity date, when the Complainant approached the OPs No. 2 & 3 for the repayment of the maturity amount, they dilly-dallied the matter, on one pretext or the other. It was only after much persuasion, that they issued two cheques of `50,000/- each, out of which only one cheque was got encashed, while the other was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds. When the legal notice was served, then by giving ridiculous excuses for the dishonour of the Cheque, the OPs No. 2 & 3 issued another cheque for `50,000/- in lieu of the earlier dishonoured cheque, but to the utter dismay of the Complainant, the newly issued cheque was also dishonoured, when presented. As a sequel thereto, another legal notice was served upon the OPs, which also failed to yield the desired results. Faced with this situation, the Complainant had to file a complaint u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, besides a Crl. Complaint u/s 418, 420, 406, 464, 467, 468, 120-B IPC, against the OPs, which are pending adjudication before the Courts at Chandigarh. The Complainant vide Para Nos. 1, 5, 18, 19, 20, 26 and also in the prayer clause had specifically alleged cheating and breach of trust against the OPs. It was contended that on account of aforesaid omissions & commissions on the part of OPs, unnecessary harassment and mental agony has been caused to the Complainant, so he had to enter into an arena of unavoidable and unwarranted litigation. Hence, this complaint has been instituted, before this Forum, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2]         Notice of the complaint was sent to OPs seeking their version of the case.

3]         OPs in their joint reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, pleaded that once the element of fraud or cheating was alleged, then the dispute cannot be adjudicated by the Consumer Court being outside the preview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, rather the same can only be decided by the Civil Court. All other material contentions of the complaint were controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

4]         Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5]         We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

6]         The grouse of the Complainant is that he had invested an amount of `1,00,000/- with OP No.1, by way of Fixed Deposit Receipt [FDR] dated 11.03.2002. The OP assured that the maturity value of `2,00,000/- shall be paid on 11.3.2009. The Complainant approached the OPs No. 2 & 3, for payment of the maturity amount, but the payment was delayed, on one pretext or the other. It is further the case of the Complainant that two cheques of `50,000/- each were issued, out of which, only one cheque was encashed, while the other was dishonoured, on account of “insufficient funds” and thereafter, another cheque of `50,000/-, in lieu of the earlier dishonoured cheque, was issued by OPs No. 2 & 3, but the same was also dishonoured. The Complainant also filed complaint u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, besides Criminal Complaint u/s 418, 420, 406, 464, 467, 468 and 120-B IPC, against the OPs.

7]         The OPs have raised the plea that once the element of fraud or cheating is pleaded by the Complainant, then the dispute cannot be adjudicated by the Consumer Court; rather, the remedy is by way of filing the Civil Suit in the court, having the jurisdiction in the matter.  

8]         Now, the only point, which called determination from this Court, is whether this Court has got the jurisdiction to try the present complaint. The answer to this is in the negative.

9]         Admittedly, the Complainant has raised a specific allegation with regard to fraud and cheating against the OPs, as the payment has not been made to him in time and besides this, the cheques issued by them had been dishonoured and criminal proceedings are also pending against them in the Criminal Courts at Chandigarh.   

10]        The law is settled that where there are allegations of fraud and cheating etc., the Consumer Court has got no jurisdiction and the matter is to be decided by the Civil Court. Reliance placed on Parveen Gupta Vs. General Manager, Telecom Deptt. and Others, III (2003) CPJ 577, Satish Chand Gosian and Anr. Versus Canara Bank, II (2009) CPJ 31, Vipin Batra Versus State Bank of India & Anr., I (2010) CPJ 82 and Oriental Insurance Company Limited Versus Munimahesh Patel, 2006 (IV), CPJ-I (Supreme Court).

11]        As a result of the above discussion, it is held that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try the present complaint, as such, the same is dismissed. However, the Complainant is at liberty to approach the civil court, if so advised. No order as to costs.

12]        Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.