P.N. Khanna v. Bank Of India, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

First Appeal No. 9 of 2015

Attorney(S)

Shri Pankaj Chandgothia, Advocate

Judges

K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The complainant/appellant held an account with the respondent bank and another with Allahabad Bank. He issued cheque No. 839595 of Allahabad Bank for Rs. 8,16,000/- in his favor and handed it over to an officer of the respondent bank for clearance. The cheque was deposited in the respondent bank's drop box by the peon Rajiv Kumar, and a counter slip was issued to the complainant. However, the amount was not credited to the complainant's account. Upon inquiry with Allahabad Bank, the complainant discovered that the cheque had been cleared for Rs. 28,16,000/- and credited to an individual named Satnam Singh in State Bank of India. Alleging deficiency in service by the respondent bank, the complainant filed a complaint before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which dismissed the complaint and granted liberty to the complainant to seek redressal in the Civil Court. The appellant filed the present appeal challenging that dismissal.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the Consumer Forum has jurisdiction to entertain complaints involving allegations of theft, forgery, and fraud requiring elaborate evidence?
Whether the dismissal of the complaint by the State Commission directing the complainant to approach the Civil Court was justified?

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

The appellant contended that there was proof of deficiency on the part of the respondent bank.
The appellant argued that the State Commission erred in dismissing the complaint without adjudicating on merits.
The appellant sought setting aside of the impugned order and remand of the matter for disposal on merits.

Respondent's Arguments

The respondent bank denied deficiency and asserted that the cheque was not found after being dropped in the drop box, leading to a police report and ongoing investigation.
The respondent contended that the cheque was forged by Satnam Singh and collected through State Bank of India, allegedly violating KYC norms.
The respondent emphasized that the complainant failed to implead Allahabad Bank, State Bank of India, and Satnam Singh as parties, rendering the complaint not maintainable.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Bright Transport Company Vs. Sangli Sahakari Bank Ltd., II (2012) CPJ 151 (NC)	Consumer Fora cannot entertain complaints based on allegations of fraud, forgery requiring voluminous evidence and detailed trial.	The court relied on this precedent to hold that complaints involving fraud and forgery are beyond the scope of summary proceedings before Consumer Fora.
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Munimahesh Patel, 2006 (2) CPC 668 (SC)	Allegations involving fraud and forgery requiring elaborate evidence are not suitable for summary adjudication by Consumer Fora.	The court applied this principle to affirm the dismissal of the complaint and the direction to approach Civil Court.
Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., I (1998) CPJ 13 (NCDRC, 4 Member Bench)	Consumer Fora are not the appropriate forums for disputes involving complex fraud and forgery requiring extensive evidence.	Supported the court's conclusion that the complaint was not maintainable before the Consumer Forum.
Swaroop Ispat Ltd. Vs United Commercial Bank, III (1992) CPJ 50 (NCDRC, 3 Member Bench)	Complaints involving forgery, fraud, and cheating requiring elaborate evidence are beyond the jurisdiction of Consumer Fora.	Reinforced the court's reasoning that the Consumer Forum's summary proceedings are unsuitable for such matters.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court examined the facts that the complainant's cheque was deposited in the respondent bank's drop box but subsequently went missing and was allegedly forged to credit a higher amount to a third party's account. The complainant did not include all relevant parties (Allahabad Bank, State Bank of India, and Satnam Singh) in the complaint, and a criminal investigation was ongoing. The court observed that complaints involving allegations of theft, forgery, and fraud necessitate detailed evidence and trial, which are not suitable for summary proceedings before Consumer Fora. Citing authoritative precedents, the court held that such matters fall outside the Consumer Forum's jurisdiction and are more appropriately adjudicated by Civil Courts. Consequently, the State Commission's dismissal of the complaint and direction to approach the Civil Court was found to be correct and justified.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the appeal at the admission stage, upholding the State Commission's order dismissing the complaint and permitting the complainant to seek remedy in the Civil Court.

The direct effect of this decision is that the complainant must pursue his grievances through the Civil Court and not through the Consumer Forum. No new precedent was established by this ruling.

Show full summary ...

To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

P.N. Khanna v. Bank Of India

Pronounced on 29 January, 2015th ORDER PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This appeal has been filed by appellant against order dated 31.10.2014 passed by State1. Commission in complaint No. 103 of 2014 P.N. by which complaint was dismissed and complainant was givenKhanna Vs. Bank of India & Anr., liberty to approach Civil Court for redressal of his grievances.

2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/ appellant had one account with opposite party/ respondent and one account with Allahabad Bank. He filled cheque No. 839595 of Allahabad Bank in his name for Rs. 8,16,000/- and handed over the cheque to Officer of the opposite party for clearance, who in turn called his peon Rajiv Kumar and got the cheque dropped in the drop box and counter slip was given to the complainant. Amount of this cheque was not credited in his account and on enquiry from Allahabad Bank, he came to know that the cheque has been cleared for Rs. 28,16,000/- and has been credited in the name of one Satnam Singh in State Bank of India. Alleging deficiency on the part of opposite party, complainant filed complaint before the State Commission. Opposite party resisted complaint and submitted that cheque dropped in the drop box was not found and report was lodged to the Police and investigation is pending. It was further, submitted that cheque was forged by Satnam Singh and got it collected through State Bank of India against KYC norms. Complainant has not impleaded Allahabad Bank, State Bank of India and Satnam Singh as party, hence, complaint was not maintainable and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned State Commission after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint as referred above, against which this appeal has been filed.

3. Heard Learned Counsel for appellant and perused record.

4. Learned Counsel for appellant submitted that in spite of proof of deficiency on the part of respondent, Learned State Commission committed error in dismissing complaint, hence, appeal be allowed and impugned order be set aside and matter may be remanded back for disposal on merits.

5. Perusal of record reveals that as per complainant, his cheque for Rs. 8,16,000/- was dropped in the drop box which was later on stolen by some person and after forgery, amount of Rs. 28,16,000/- was credited in the name of Satnam Singh in State Bank of India. Admittedly, complainant has not impleaded Allahabad Bank, State Bank of India and Satnam Singh as opposite parties in the complaint and criminal investigation is also pending in the matter. As there are allegations of theft, forgery and clearance of forged cheque by the Bank, Learned State Commission rightly dismissed complaint and directed complainant to approach Civil Court for redressal of his grievances.

6. Learned State Commission rightly observed as under:- In Bright Transport Company Vs. Sangli Sahakari Bank Ltd., II (2012) CPJ 151 (NC), it was held by the National Commission that the complaints which are based on the allegations of fraud, forgery, etc. and trial of which would require the leading of voluminous evidence and consideration thereof cannot be entertained by the Consumer Fora. In Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Munimahesh Patel 2006 (2) CPC 668 , decided by the Honble Apex Court; (SC) Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs. United India a case decided by a four Member Bench of theInsurance Co. Ltd., I (1998) CPJ 13, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi and M/s. Singhal . a case decided bySwaroop Ispat Ltd. Vs United Commercial Bank III (1992) CPJ 50, a three member Bench of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi it was held that when there are allegations of forgery, fraud and cheating, adjudication whereof, requires elaborate evidence, the same cannot be decided, by a Consumer Fora, proceedings before which, are summary in nature.

7. In the light of aforesaid observation and judgments, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and appeal filed by the appellant is liable to be dismissed in atlimini admission stage.

8. Consequently, appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs. -sd/- ......................J K.S. CHAUDHARI PRESIDING MEMBER

P.N. Khanna v. Bank Of India

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

Respondent's Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

P.N. Khanna v. Bank Of India

Comments

We use cookies to improve your experience