D.O.F:28/04/2023
D.O.O:29/09/2023
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD
IA-209/2023 in CC.112/2023
Dated this, the 29th day of September 2023
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Chethan Kumar, aged 40 years
S/o Damodar Nayak and Shanthi D. Nayak
Permanentrsident of Shanthi Nilaya, Near SAT High
School Guddakeri, Manjeshwar, Kasaragod : Complainant
(Adv: K.A. Lalan & Mary Savitha)
And
The Secretary
The manjeshwar Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.
Hosabettu, No. C, 323, P.O Manjeshwar
Kasaragod , 671323 : Opposite Party
(Adv: Rajesh.K)
ORDER
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
Brief facts of the case is that: complainant is one of the legal heir of his parents, who were customers of Opposite Party bank until their death. His father was secretary of the Opposite Party bank. His father had an untimely demise due to heart attack and there were three years left to complete his tenure as a secretary of Opposite Party bank. Being unexpected sudden death he could not convey about his savings and other benefits to his legal heirs. Just before the death of his mother she confided him that she was suspicious of the transactions of her accounts in the Opposite Party bank and also of his father’s in order to resolve the issue he approached Opposite Party bank several times and requested for the bank transactions and account details. He made several e – mail contacts to receive the details but Opposite Party denied providing the details. The complainant alleges that denying information suppressing data and figours, dereliction of duty by Opposite Party amounts to deficiency in service and the conduct of Opposite Party caused hardship, mental stress and financial loss for which complainant claims compensation for deficiency in service.
2. For Opposite Party Advocate Rajesh appeared and filed written version and contended that subject matter in the complaint relates to sharing of assets left by deceased father and mother of complainant and his family members, and it can be decided only by Civil Court and there is no deficiency in service and complainant is not entitled for any of the relief sought in the complaint.
In the meanwhile Opposite Party Opposite Party filed IA 209/2023 to decide the maintainability of the complaint, on the ground that complainant is not a consumer and Commission has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute and no cause of action and prayed to dismiss the complaint. Complainant filed counter to IA strongly opposing the petition.
Heard the counsel for the parties in detail and following points arised for consideration.
- Whether complainant is a consumer and whether dispute involved in complaint comes under consumer dispute and if so whether complainant is mainatainable at law.
Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 reads as under:
Consumer means any person who ;
- buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
- hires or avails of any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such service other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person, but does not include a person who avails of such service for any commercial purpose.
From the above definition it is crystal clear that, a person who purchases goods or avails services for consideration will became a consumer. In the instent case the complainant has not availed the service of Opposite party for consideration. On clear perusal of documents it is clear that complainant has sent e-mail messages to Opposite party for obtaining the account details.
Furthermore Complaint with “highly disputed questions of facts cannot be decided by Consumer Dispute Redresssal Commission. It is clearly stated by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in City Union Bank Ltd V/s V.R Ramachandran 2023 SCC on line Sc 341, judgment dated 27/03/2023 :- Consumer – Commission – cannot - decide- disputed – Question - of – fact – Supreme court.
In Ravneet- singh Bagga V/s KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, (2000) / SCC elaborating deficiency in service. The court also relied on Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd V/s Munimahesh patel (2006) SCC 655 wherein the court elucidated the proceedings before the commission essentially being summary in nature restricting adjudication of issues involving disputed factual questions.
The Consumer Protection Act is dedicated, as its preamble highlights, to provide speedy, inexpensive and simple redressal to consumer disputes. Further this act provides for the cases to be tried summarily and with a view to meet this objective , the legislature, very consciously made only certain identified provisions of the CPC applicable to the proceedings under the Consumer protection Act. In fact, where complicated questions of law of facts are involved, consumer Commission under the Act is not proper to dispose of such a case in a summary fashion and such cases ought to be tried by the civil courts by applying detailed civil procedure.
Therefore since disputes raised require detailed evidence complicated questions are involved IA is allowed holding that complaint is not maintainable and consumer complaint is dismissed without order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Ps/
