DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
THIRUVALLUR

 BEFORE  TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law)                  .…. PRESIDENT
                 THIRU.P.VINODH KUMAR, B.Sc., B.L.,                                                      .....MEMBER-I
                 THIRU P. MURUGAN. M.Com., ICWA (Inter)., B.L.,                               ….. MEMBER-II

CMP.No.19/2021 In CC.No.56/2019 in RBT/CC. No.71/2022 &
CMP.No.72/2022 in RBT/CC. No.71/2022
THIS TUESDAY, THE 28th  DAY OF MARCH 2023

1.The Cosmos Co-operative Bank Limited (Head Office),
   Rep. by it Director,
   Cosmos Tower, Plot No.6, S.No.132/B,
   ICS Colony, University Road,
   Ganesh Khind, Pune 411 007, Maharashtra.

2.The Cosmos Co-operative Bank Limited, (Regional Office),
   No.223, 1st Floor, 6th Main Road,
   2nd Avenue, Y Block, Anna Nagar,
   Chennai 600 040.

3.The Cosmos Co-operative Bank Limited,
   Plot No.2, New Door No.3, Ground Floor,
   Defence Colony,
   Medavakkam Main Road,
   Medipakkam, Chennai 600 091.                     ...Petitioners/Opposite parties 1 to 3.

                                                               //Vs//
                                                              
1.Mr.A.Manikandan, S/o.Arumugam,
   New No.14, first floor,
   Vinayagar Kovil Street,
   Aminjikarai, Chennai 600 029.                                .....1st Respondent/complainant.

2.Mr.K.Parasuraman,
   Ravindra Bharathi Global School,
   No.137/1 Lotus, Villa Vasantham Nagar,
   Nandambakkam, Chennai 600 089.              .....2nd Respondent/4th opposite party.

 
This petitions came up before us finally on 27.03.2023 and upon perusing the documents and evidence, this Commission delivered the following:
 COMMON ORDER
PRONOUNCED BY TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI,   PRESIDENT.

CMP.No.19/2021 has been filed by the complainant to direct the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties Bank to deposit the document dated 25.05.2016 bearing the alleged signature by the petitioner for the loan account No.1278012146 and also the document of the loan Account No.1278012628 which bears the signature of the petitioner to ascertain the genuineness of the alleged signature in the documents.
CMP.No.72/2022 in CC.No.71/2022 has been filed by the opposite parties 1 to 3 against the complainant to decide the maintainability of the complaint before this commission as preliminary issue and to dismiss the complaint.
As CMP.No.72/2022 seeks for deciding the maintainability of the complaint before this commission we thought it would be appropriate to decide this petition at the preliminary stage.
Brief fact of the petiton in CMP No.72/2022 in CC.No.71/2022:-
The sum and substance of the petition filed by the petitioners/opposite parties in CMP.No.72/2022 is that the consumer complaint does not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint on the ground that the allegation does not constitute a ‘complaint’ as defined under the Consumer Protection Act 2019. It was submitted that the complaint preliminarily deals with serious allegations of fraud and forgery against the opposite parties 1 to 3 which could not be adjudicated before this commission.  Further as the issue involves disputed question of facts and law the same could not be adjudicated in a summary manner before this commission as it requires detailed oral and documentary evidence to prove whether such documents were forged or not.   It is also stated that the allegations of the complainant does not constitute deficiency in service as no service was involved.  Thus the petitioners/opposite parties sought for the dismissal of the complaint at the preliminary stage itself on th ground of maintainability.
Counter filed by the Respondent/Complainant:-
On the other hand, the Respondent/Complainant filed counter to the application for rejection of complaint stating that all banking services fall within the definition under the act. The act of the petitioners/opposite parties in misusing the document of the complainant was a clear deficiency in service.  It was submitted that the Consumer Commission has the power to adjudicate disputes involving complicated facts and issues.  Further Section 38(9)(d) provides the power of Civil Court to the Consumer Commission and hence the commission could obtain a report based on expert opinion and adjudicate the case.  Thus sought for the petition to be dismissed.
Point for Consideration:-
Whether the petition filed by the petitioner/complainant in CMP.No.19/2021 In CC.No.56/2019 in RBT/CC. No.71/2022 and the petition filed by the petitioners/opposite parties 1 to 3 in CMP.No.72/2022 in RBT/CC. No.71/2022 has to be allowed or not?

Point No.1:-
Oral arguments adduced by both parties, the crux of the oral arguments adduced by the petitioners/opposite parties is that the prayer itself is not maintainable as it relates to specific relief which could not be tried and granted by this commission.  Further even as per version of the complainant he had not signed any documents and hence he is not a consumer.  The allegation of fraud and forgery could only tried by the Civil Court.  Also argued that there is no provision for referring the signature for expert evidence as there was only provision for lab testing available under the Consumer Protection Act for products and not for any documents.  Thus by citing the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.4091/2006 in Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Munimahesh Patel dated 12.09.2006 and decision rendered by the Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.6756/2002 in Trai Foods Limited Vs National Insurance Company and Others dated 31.01.2003 reported in (2004) 13 SCC 656 and finally the decision rendered by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in RP.No.1268/2011 in Nirmal Kumar Pandey and Ors. Vs Kollati Construction Limited and Ors dated 19.08.2015 in support of their contentions, the petitioners/opposite parties sought for the petition to be allowed and the complaint to be dismissed in limine.
On the other hand, the complainant argued that even as per the pleadings in the complaint he was a Member with the 1st opposite party Bank and has availed mortgage loan and hence he could be considered very well as a consumer.  Further submitted that using fradulently the KYC document submitted by him for obtaining mortgage loan for the housing loan obtained by 4th opposite party clearly amounts to unfair trade practice.
On appreciation of the entire pleadings and materials submitted by both parties this commission proceeded to find out whether the complaint as filed constitutes involves as issue that could not to be tried within the jurisdiction of this Consumer Commission.
The consumer complaint was filed against the opposite parties Bank stating that the complainant had become a Member with the 1st opposite party Bank and he has availed a Mortgage Term Loan for a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- from the 3rd opposite party on 10.08.2016 mortgaging his property as security with them. The complainant was repaying his loan without any default till date and loan is still pending. The complainant was doing business in marketing and sales of computer peripherals in the name of “Vinayaka Marketing”.  Since the complainant wanted to develop his business had applied for a business loan with Axis Bank, Anna Nagar Branch on 15.02.2018. To the shock of the complainant the loan was rejected on the basis that the credit report of the complainant was not healthy.  On further verification the complainant came to know that the business loan was specifically denied and rejected on the ground that a housing loan with the 2nd opposite party had over due to a sum of Rs.43,680/- and due to which, the CIBIL report did not reflect a healthy track record.  The complainant obtained on perusal of the report found that a housing loan account in the name of 4th opposite party with the 2nd opposite party bank was overdue and that the complainant stood as guarantor in respect of the said loan account.  The complainant did not have any acquaintance with the 4th opposite party borrower at any point of time. Immediately when the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party and sought for clarification it is informed that he had signed as guarantor for the housing loan obtained by the 4th opposite party.  The complainant realized that some sort of fraud had been committed by the opposite parties by forging the signature of the complainant and also fabricating the complainant’s documents such as Pan Card, Aadhaar Card and other bank Statement in obtaining the housing loan . It is stated in the complaint as follows;
“On verifying the documents signed by the alleged guarantor in the housing loan documents belonging to the 4th opposite party, it became crystal clear that the 2nd and 3rd opposite party banks had misused and fabricated the complainant’s documents such as Pan Card, Aadhaar card and other bank statements and also the signatures in the housing loan account of the 4th opposite party.  The signatures available in the housing loan document where the complainant has stood as the guarantor was not his signature and the same were fabricated. All these documents were given by the complainant as KYC documents for his loan account.  The banks have manipulated the documents belonging to the complainant to the loan account of the 4th opposite party only for the best known to them.
As and when the complainant came to know about the fraud committed by the opposite parties 2 to 4, he had given a written complaint before the 3rd opposite party bank on 19.06.2018.  Thereafter the complainant had also preferred a Police complaint on 06.08.2018 before the Inspector of Police (Crime), S-7 Madipakkam Police Station, Chennai 91 informing about the fraud and forgery committed by the opposite parties.  The Police on receipt of the complaint on 09.08.2018 took the complaint on file and issued a CSR in CSR No.532/2018.  The complaint is still pending investigation and the complainant had been following up with the Commissioner of Police, through is email for speedy disposal of his complaint.  The complainant had even sent an email dated 17.09.2018 to the Commissioner of Police, Chennai and the said representation are still under consideration.“
Therefore even as per the pleadings of the complainant it is seen that the complainant had alleged fraud and forgery against the opposite parties for which a police complaint had also filed and the same was pending for investigation.  In this scenario, the decision relied upon by the counsel for the petitioners/opposite parties in Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Munimahesh rendered by the Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.4091/2006 dated 12.09.2006 holding that when genuineness of documents is questioned and when the adjudication of issues involves disputed factual questions, the same should not be tried in the Consumer Commission squarely applies to the facts of the present case.  Also in the decision rendered by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in RP.No.1268/2011 in Nirmal Kumar Pandey and Ors Vs Kollati Construction Limited and Ors dated 19.08.2015 reported in MANU/CF/0589/2015 it has been clearly mentioned that the petitioner‘s allegations of fraud, criminal conspiracy and creation of fake settlement deed etc., the consumer forum has no jurisdiction to deal with such matter. Thus when the cause of action for the present complaint arises out of allegations of fraud and forgery by the opposite parties, this commission is of the view that the same involves complicated question of facts and issues which could not be adjudicated and decided by this forum which is possible only before an appropriate forum where elaborate evidence could be let in by the parties.  Further comparison of signature as requested by the complainant is not permissible before Consumer Commission where proceedins are held in  summary manner.  Thus we answer the point holding that the petition has to be allowed and we decide the preliminary issue regarding the maintainability of the complaint in favour of the opposite parties holding that the present complaint as filed is not maintainable before this commission and we direct the complainant to seek remedy before proper Forum.
In the result, the CMP.No.72/2022 in RBT/CC.No.71/2022 is allowed and consequently RBT/CC.No.71/2022 is dismissed with no cost.
Resultantly CMP.No.19/2021 is also dismissed. No Cost.

Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 28th day of March 2023.

                                                                                     
     Sd/-                                                            Sd/-                                                    Sd/-   
 MEMBER-II                                               MEMBER I                                      PRESIDENT