By Sri. MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT

 1.        The opposite party filed version in detail in this complaint and contended that the complaint is not maintainable and so heard both parties, perused documents and passed the following order.

2.         The complainant filed this complaint seeking compensation of Rs.50, 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 20M/2023 and award was also passed on 10/11/2023. On the basis of award the opposite party has credited Rs.52,09,112/- 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 arbitrational agreement.

5.         The Commission have gone through the pleading in the complaint.

6.         The complaint in brief is that he has got NRO savings bank account No.110241000107835 of Federal bank Malappuram branch and NRE account No; 99982101524255 for the last 11 years.  During the month May 2021 while the complainant visited the opposite party bank one Mr Fazalu Rahman, priority relationship manager  of opposite party introduced  a mutual fund scheme launched by opposite party namely  “pure growth fund “. Mr Fasulurahman assured it is as per “Sharia “. It is assured as Sharia compliance fund and assured appropriate margin of 10 – 13% per annum for the deposit and the return will be deposited to the account of complainant on monthly basis. Normally the customer gets 5.15 % interest per annum for the fixed deposit.  Believing all these assurance the complainant started to deposit up to 60, 00, 0000/- rupees. The complainant received dividend as assured by the employer up to 2022 August. 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 FazuluRahman. The case is that Mr Fasulu Rahman along with others misappropriated an amount of Rs. 17, 0, 00, 0000/- 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.         Thereafter 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.         Now, it can be seen that this complaint is filed to get an order against the opposite party bank to pay Rs. 60, 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 20M /23, arbitration agreement, claim petition submitted by the claim petitioner before the  sole arbitrator, counter statement filed by the  federal bank, re joinder in AC 20M/23 by claim petitioner, reply to re joinder by bank, chief affidavit by claim petition, acknowledgment of request of claim amount as per arbitration award by Musthafa Kunhappu chalil in AC 20M/2023.

11.      The opposite party submitted that the dispute between complainant and opposite party was referred to an arbitrator who is mutely agreed and appointed. The complainant himself produced documents to prove the same. It appears there is an Arbitron 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 allegation of the complainant is not trustworthy 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 complaint is admittedly received dividend which is the share of profit. Dispute on the basis of deposit in share market is not a 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 discloses various issues and complicated questions of law which requires detailed evidence and not a subject matter to be considered before the consumer commission. 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.