2. The complainant filed this complaint seeking compensation of Rs.25, 00,000/- with interest and cost from the opposite party.
3. The opposite party filed version in detail contenting that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. Opposite party also contended that the complaint is barred by res judicata since on very same dispute and cause of action an adjudication was made by the arbitrator as per AC 16M/2023 and an award was also passed on 10/11/2023. On the basis of award the opposite party has credited Rs.13,69,367/- to the account of complainant and he had acknowledged the same agreeing and confirming the payment of the amount constitute full and final settlement of all his claim and releasing the bank from all liability financial or otherwise in this regard. The complainant had also assured that he will not initiate any further demands or claim against bank in this connection. It is contended that parties decided for an arbitration to settle dispute so there is clear bar for adjudicating the same issue by any other court / Forum.
4. The opposite party submitted that the contention of complainant that he reserved right to prosecute the bank and its employees and to proceed for compensation before appropriate forum is absolutely incorrect and there is no as such clause in the arbitration agreement.
5. The Commission have gone through the pleadings in the complaint.
6. The complaint in brief is that he has got NRO savings bank account No.11024100119848 of Federal bank Malappuram branch and NRE account No.11022100012971 for the last 20 years. During the month December 2020 while the complainant visited the opposite party bank one Mr FazuluRahman, priority relationship manager of opposite party introduced a mutual fund scheme launched by opposite party namely “pure growth fund “. Mr Fasulurahman assured it as “Sharia “compliance fund. It is assured that there is appropriate profit margin of 10 – 15% per annum for the deposit and the return will be deposited to the account of complainant on monthly basis. Believing all these assurance the complainant started to deposit up to 20, 00,000/- rupees. The complainant received dividend as assured by the employer up to 2022 July. Thereafter in September no dividend received by the complainant and so made enquiry and then it was found it as stopped and further came to know that the police case has been registered against Mr Fazul Rahman. The case is that Mr Fasulu Rahman along with others misappropriated an amount of Rs. 17, 00, 00000/- (seventeen crore) by fraudulently deceiving the customers of the bank. Hence the complainant approached opposite party bank for the entire deposited amount alleging the responsibility of bank for the acts of the employee.
7. The aggrieved parties agreed to refer the dispute for arbitration. The complainant submitted they reserved legal right to prosecute bank and its employees for criminal acts committed by them and to proceed for compensation before the appropriate Forum.
8. Retired district Judge Sri Krishnankuty appointed as arbitrator in the matter and criminal investigation also going on in the matter.
9. This complaint is filed to get an order against the opposite party bank to pay Rs.25, 00,000/- with interest to the complainant along with cost.
10. This Commission heard the argument of both side and perused documents which are not marked but includes copy of award of arbitration in the matter of AC 16M /23, arbitration agreement, claim petition submitted the claim petitioner before the sole arbitrator, counter statement filed by the federal bank, re joinder in AC 16M/23 by claim petitioner, reply to re joinder by bank, chief affidavit by claim petition, acknowledgment of receipt of claim amount as per arbitration award by Haris Thottoli in AC 16M/2023.
11. The opposite party submitted that the dispute between complainant and opposite party was referred to an arbitrator mutely agreed and appointed. The complainant himself produced documents to prove the complaint. The opposite party produced acknowledgment receipt for compliance of arbitration award. It appears there is an arbitration award. So the opposite party submitted that the claim has been settled through arbitration award and the opposite party has complied the award through the payment of award amount. The opposite party produced acknowledgment of receipt of claim amount and so the same stands proved. But the complainant submitted that the right to proceed against the bank for compensation before appropriate forum and banking ombudsman was reserved while the matter was referred for arbitration. But the perusal of agreement for referring arbitration no such clause is present. But it appears final and binding on both the parties as per clause 4 of the arbitration agreement. More over the opposite party raised certain allegations against the complainant that there is collusion between the complainant and the employee of the bank against whom the criminal investigation is pending. The opposite party submitted that there were transactions not even day time working hours of the bank. The opposite party submitted that the complainant entrusted money to the employee to deposit in NRE account is evident from the submission of the complainant which is against law. More over the opposite party submitted that the complainant is well aware of the fact that there is no scheme in India on the basis of “Sharia” compliance or of any other faith. It is also submitted a banking transaction requires signed application, KYC details and relevant other documents. But in this complaint the complainant could not produce those documents which disclose the involvement of the complainant in the fraudulent transaction.
12. Hence the opposite party submitted that the allegations of the complainant is not trustworthy, not approached with clean hands and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
13. The commission finds that the transaction involved in this complaint is not a mere banking transaction but a deposit scheme called “pure growth fund “and out of the deposit the complainant is admittedly received dividend. The deposit of amount in share is not subject matter of consumer dispute. So it can be seen that the issue involved is not a mere banking transaction to be dealt under Consumer Protection Act. The averments in the complaint and the version disclosed various issues which requires detailed examination of evidence which is not a subject matter to be considered before the consumer commission in a summary procedure. Hence the commission finds there is merit in the contention raised by the opposite party and accordingly the complaint stands dismissed by this commission with liberty to the complainant to approach before appropriate authority.
Dated this 28th day of October, 2024.
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
