Date of Filing: 03/08/2011
Date of Order: 18/08/2011
BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE - 20
Dated: 18th DAY OF AUGUST 2011
PRESENT
SRI.H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO,B.SC.,B.L., PRESIDENT
SRI.KESHAV RAO PATIL, B.COM., M.A., LL.B., PGDPR, MEMBER
SMT.NIVEDITHA .J, B.SC.,LLB., MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO. 1437 OF 2011
Smt. Geethanjali,
D/o. S. Suryanarayana Setty,
Aged About 33 years,
Prop of “Gudemaranahalli Steel Tech & Cements”,
# 44/1, Chikkagollarahatty,
Machohalli Village, Magadi Main Road,
Bangalore-560 091.
R/at: No.101, New Colony,
RPC Layout, Vijayanagar 2nd Stage,
Bangalore-560 104.
(Rep. by Advocate Sri. Harish H.V.) Complainant.
-V/s-
(1) The General Manager,
State Bank of Hyderabad,
Head Office, Hy Bank towers,
Gun foundry, Hyderabad-500 001.
Andhrapradesh State.
(2) State Bank of Hyderabad,
Branch Office, Basaveshwaranagar,
Bangalore-79. By its Branch Manager.
(3) The Deputy Manager,
State Bank of Hyderabad,
Branch Office: # 448, 2nd Cross,
6th Main, 3rd Block, 3rd Stage,
Basaveshwaranagar Branch,
Basaveshwaranagar, Bangalore-79.
(4) Sri. G.T. Shanthakumar,
S/o. G.V. Thippaiah Setty,
Aged About 47 years,
R/at: No.14, Sapthagiri Nilaya,
1st Cross, NHCS Layout, Water Tank
Road, Basaveshwaranagar, Bangalore-560 079.
(Absent though served) Opposite parties.
BY SRI. H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT
ORDER
The brief antecedents that lead to the filing of the complainant made Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, seeking direction to the opposite parties seeking call for records from the second opposite party with respect to the transactions of the current account bearing No.62047435506, O.D. account bearing No.62089515234 and the S.B. Account bearing No.62105878678 and to give direction to the opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 to pay Rs.15,00,000/-towards compensation and Rs.20,000/- towards litigation expenses, are necessary:-
The complainant had obtained current account bearing No.62047435506 during the year 2007 and O.D. account bearing No.62089515234 in the year 2009 with the second opposite party. The fourth opposite party is the husband of the complainant who is not residing with her since 26.04.2009. She has not signed any cheques or transacted with the opposite party No.2 bank since 26.04.2009. The officials of the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties in collusion with the fourth opposite party have given more than 500 cheque leaves from the said accounts of the complainant by forging her signatures and allowed the fourth opposite party to transact with the second opposite party bank. The opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 have erred in verifying the signature of the complainant with them. The complainant came to know that the opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 and their officials in collusion with the fourth opposite party have allowed the opposite party No.4 to open S.B. account bearing No.62105878678 in the name of the complainant with her forged signatures, without the consent or knowledge of the complainant on 02.09.2009 they allowed him to transact in the matter. The opposite party Nos.1 to 3 have not followed the procedure prescribed to see this. This is deficiency in service. The complainant is residing with her parents and she is depending on them. The complainant has not given any authorization to the fourth opposite party. The complainant had raised a dispute in complaint No.50/2011 before the Hon’ble Karnataka State Commission which was withdrawn on 07.07.2011 and is filed before this forum. Hence the complaint.
2. The arguments were heard.
3. The points that arise for our consideration are:-
- Whether there is any prima facie case to proceed against the opposite parties in this complaint?
- What order?
4. Our findings on the above points are:-
Point (A):In the Negative
Point (B):As per the final order
For the following:-
REASONS
POINT (A) & (B):-
5. Reading the complaint in conjunction with the documents produced by the complainant along with the complaint and also on 11.08.2011 before this forum it is needless to say that the complainant is the proprietorix of “M/s. Gudemaranahalli Steel Tech and Cements” concern. The complainant never stated in the complaint – what is she manufacturing or doing service under the said company? Anyway the complainant is a business women, and for her business purpose she had obtained an O.D. account and also a current account. That means for her business transaction she had the accounts with the opposite party No.2. Hence she cannot be a consumer within the frozen of the Consumer Protection Act. The entire O.D. transactions and all the transactions she has done with the opposite party No.2 is a commercial transaction and not a personal gain transaction. In a case between Birla Technologies Limited –V/s- Neutral Glass And Allied Industries Limited in 2011 CTJ 121 the Apex Court has ruled thus:-
“If the goods are purchased for the commercial purpose of earning more profits then there can be no dispute that even the services offered along with them have to be for the same purpose.”
Further in a case between Techno Mukund Constructions –V/s- Mercedes Benz India Limited & Another reported in 2011 CTJ 387 (CP)(NCDRC) the National Commission has ruled thus:-
“The intention of Parliament in excluding persons purchasing goods for commercial purpose from the definition of the expression ‘Consumer’ is to impose a restriction that the special remedy before the Consumer forums can be invoked only by ordinary consumers buying goods for their private and personal use and consumption and not business organizations buying goods for commercial purpose.”
That is to say if the consumer protection act is available only to the regular ordinary consumer who purchase the materials or take service for their personal consumption and not for the commercial transaction and not for the commercial activities. Hence there is no necessity to proceed further.
6. The entire transaction of the complainant is that she and her husband i.e., fourth opposite party are not residing together since 26.04.2009 that’s all. Merely they are residing separately it does not mean that she has not issued the cheques or she has not transacted with the cheques. In this case the grievance is that above 500 cheque leaves were transacted in the accounts pertaining to her by forging her signature by somebody. How can this Forum which has a limited jurisdiction scrutinize these 500 cheques; to know if the admitted signatures are of the complainant or not and to know whether in all these transactions she has did the signatures or not. In any event the complainant is the proprietorix of “M/s. Gudemaranahalli Steel Tech and Cements”. The complainant has produced only the copies of 184 cheques and not 500 cheques. What are those cheques that were issued? To whom it was issued? Has not been stated. Any way the 184 copies she has produced clearly goes to show that M/s. Gudemaranahalli Steel Tech and Cements has issued these cheques to Shabina Steels, Penna Cement Industries Limited, LVO-075, Sree Balajee TMT Rod Mills (P) Ltd., Vijayaa Steels Limited, Hyderabad Industries Limited, Perfect Sales Corporation, Bhima Steel & Cement Corporation, ACC Limited, Future General India Insurance Company Limited, your-self, Rain Commodities Limited, Chettinad Cement Corporation Limited, Madras Cements Limited, Balajee Ispat, S.K. Steel Tech, Sri Venkateshwara Traders, Gudemaranahalli Steel Tech & Cements, M.M. Enterprises, Sandhya Rolling Mill, Dinesh Enterprises, Visaka Industries Limited, Bangalore Mopeds Sales & Services Private Limited, Sapathagiri Traders, R. Raghunath, Met Life India Insurance Company Limited, Indus Steels and Alloys Limited, Shree Radha Krishna Alloys Private Limited, Balajee Industries, Jamaths Tyre Sales & Service Private Limited, Aastha Minmet (J) Pvt Ltd., ICICI Lombard GIC Ltd, Essae-Teraoka Limited, Gajanana Wirelines, Karthik Enterprises, Sri Varasiddhi Vinayaka Traders, G.T. Shantha Kumar and these cheques were account payee cheques only. That means as the proprietorix of M/s.Gudemaranahalli Steel Tech and Cements these cheques were issued to the other companies between 20.07.2009 and 18.03.2010 that’s all. For what purpose these cheques were issued. The complainant never stated that she has no transactions with these persons to whom these cheques were issued. Only the grievance is that she is not residing with her husband and she has not signed, this requires detailed pleadings, detailed cross-examination, detailed scrutiny of the materials that cannot be done by this Forum in a summery way.
7. The complainant had produced the copy of her specimen signature with the opposite party No.2 on a plain sheet. In this specimen signature form wherein her three signatures are there. It is needless to say that the signatures on these 184 cheques issued by her and the signatures in the specimen signature form are almost similar. Anyway if the signatures are not that of the complainant the complainant had to obtain the experts opinion and submit the report and the expert has to be cross-examined that cannot be done in this consumer forum. Hence it cannot be said that there is any deficiency in service at prima facie.
8. Further contended that the complainant had not obtained the S.B. Account with the opposite party No.2 nor signed the proposal forum. This is also an untenable contention. The complainant had produced her specimen signature form with respect to the current account and OD account and which is admitted by her as her signature. Comparing with these signatures with the account opening form dated: 02.09.2009 produced by her it clearly shows that it is she who has signed the form and it is her own photograph. Hence it cannot be said that she has not signed the account opening form or the opposite parties had colluded with each other in this regard. Anyway these signatures have to be tested by an expert and by voluminous oral and documentary evidence and cross-examination that cannot be decided in a summery way. Hence there is no justification in proceeding further.
9. In any even in this current account or in the S.B. account what is the loss that has been caused to the complainant, the Bank never stated that the complainant is due any amount to them. Because of the dispute with her husband she has come to this forum to seek vegans against her husband the forum cannot be pulled down to that if she has any grievance she can make allegation against with her husband with respect to the current account, O.D. account and S.B. account and seek declaration that it is not binding on her subsequent to 26.04.2009 or any other relief as she deemed fit. The Consumers Forums are meant only for an ordinary consumer and not for such persons. The complainant has cited decisions in (1) 2003(III)-CPJ 20(NC), (2) 1997 (III)-CPJ 427 (TN), (3) 2000(III)-CPJ 23(MP), (4) 2008(III)-CPJ 462, (5) 2010(III)-CPJ 112. There is no dispute about the proposition of law laid down therein. Hence the facts and circumstances of those cases is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case and distinguishing the above citied judgments will only bulk and bulge the records which is impermissible as under Regulation 18(5) of the Consumer Protection Regulation (2005). Hence it has not been quoted in extenso. Hence we hold the above points accordingly and proceed to pass the following:-
18.08.2011:-
COMPLAINANT/BY SRI. H.H.V.
OPPOSITE PARTY/BY SRI.
ORDER
1. The complaint is Dismissed. No order as to costs.
2. Return the extra sets filed by the parties to the concerned as under Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer’s Protection Regulation 2005.
3. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs, immediately.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 18th Day of August 2011)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
