CC Filed on 23.10.2009
Disposed on 06.08.2011
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.
Dated: 06th day of August 2011
PRESENT:
HONORABLET. RAJASHEKHARAIAH, President.
HONORABLE T.NAGARAJA, Member.
HONORABLE K.G.SHANTALA, Member.
---
Consumer Complaint No. 162/2009
Between:
Mr. K. Ramappa, S/o. Dodda Kuntappa, Aged 72 years, Agriculturist and Patato Trading, MangasandraVillage, Kolar Taluk. (By Advocate Sri. Sama Rangappa & others) | ….Complainant |
V/S The Manager, Canara Bank, Kolar Branch, KolarCity. (By Advocate Sri. R.A. Mohan & others) | ….Opposite Party |
ORDERS
This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant contends that he was having S.B. Account in the Opposite Party Bank from 05.11.1992 with a deposit of Rs.3 lakhs. It is stated that during the period from 23.11.1996 to 03.01.1998 the Opposite Party had fraudulently withdrawn Rs.3,98,000/- from the complainant’s account by using 25 cheques by forging the signature of the complainant. The details showing the date on which the amount was drawn and the amount drawn is stated in the complaint. It is stated that on 06.01.2008 the complainant presented a cheque for encashment of Rs.25,000/- from his account, the cheque was bounced for want of sufficient funds in his account. Immediately the complainant verified his account and found that the officials of the Opposite Party have drawn 25 cheques fraudulently by using the cheque from the Opposite Party Bank. The amount has been drawn in fictitious names. The Opposite Party is vicariously liable to reimburse the customers of the Bank. He lodged complaint to the Police and a Private Complaint to Judicial Magistrate in Crime No. 32/1998 against the accused officials and it is pending for adjudication. The notice was issued on 11.03.2009 calling upon the Opposite Party to reimburse the amount as there was deficiency in service and the Opposite Party has not replied that notice. Hence this complaint is filed praying for a direction to the Opposite Party to pay Rs.3,98,000/- and to pay compensation.
2. The Opposite Party has filed its version and has denied the allegation that any amount has been drawn from the account of the complainant by forging his cheque. It is stated that Police have investigated the matter on the reference made by the Magistrate Court in Crime No. 32/1998 and submitted a ‘B’ report. Against that Revision Petition was filed and the matter is remanded to the JMFC Court, Kolar. Hence the complainant is not maintainable. As the complainant alleges fraud in those transactions, that cannot be decided by this Forum and requires strict pleading and proof. Hence the complaint is not maintainable and complaint may be dismissed.
3. The points that arise for our consideration are:
Point No.1: Whether the complainant has proved the alleged
deficiency in service by the OP?
Point No.2: Whether the complaint is in time?
Point No.3: To what order?
4. Our findings to these points are as hereunder:
1. Negative
2. Negative
3. As per final order.
R E A S O N S
5. POINT NO.1: The complainant alleges that on 25 occasions the amount has been drawn from his account by forging his cheques. Hence for proving the alleged forgery detailed evidence will be required and that cannot be done in the summary proceedings before this Forum. The Opposite Party has denied of having forged any cheques as alleged by the complainant. Hence a detailed enquiry will be required for proving that the amount has been drawn by forging the cheques of the complainant. Hence complicated question of facts will be involved and evidence of expert witness, such as handwriting experts will also be required to prove that the amount has been drawn by those cheques by forging the signatures of the complainant. Hence we hold that such serious questions cannot be decided in this summary proceedings and because of it the complaint is not maintainable. Hence the question of considering any deficiency in service does not arise. Hence this point is held against the complainant.
6. POINT NO.2: In our opinion the complaint is also barred by limitation. This complaint is filed on 23.10.2009. Those transactions are the period from 23.11.1996 to 03.01.1998. Hence the complaint is filed after the expiry of two years from the date of respective transaction and the complaint is clearly barred by limitation. Hence we hold that the complaint is barred by limitation.
7. POINT NO.3: In view of the finding of point No.1 and 2 the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Hence we pass the following:
O R D E R
The complaint is dismissed. No costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 06th day of August 2011.
T. NAGARAJA K.G.SHANTALA T. RAJASHEKHARAIAH
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
