Delhi

New Delhi

CC/1255/2012

Naushad Ahamed & Anr. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Corporation Bank & Anr. - Opp.Party(s)

13 Sep 2019

ORDER

 

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC. 1255/2012                                  Dated:

In the matter of:

               Naushad Ahmed,

             S/o Sh. Noor Hassan,

             C-14/13, Gali No.8,

             Kabir Nagar, Delhi.

                           ……..COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

1.    Corporation Bank,

Circle Office,

Hindustan Times House Building,

K.G. Marg, Connaught Place,

New Delhi-01.

 

2.     Corporation Bank,

Circle Office

Hindustan Times House Building,

K.G. Marg, Connaught Place,

New Delhi-01.

Through General Manager.

 

3.    Manager, Branch Office,

Corporation Bank,

Kabir Nagar,

C-5, North Chhajjupur,

Ramodevi Building, 110 Feet Road,

Chhajjupur, Delhi-94.

 

 

 

                      Opposite Parties

 

 

NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER

   ORDER

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The brief facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant is the saving account holder of OP-3 bank bearing account no. 207700101518296. On 26/09/2012, one Sh. Mehtab called him through his mobile and lured him by stating that he would facilitate him in availing the home loan. Subsequently, meeting was fixed for 28/09/2012 between the complainant and Sh. Mehtab, in which he sought documents for processing the home loan which inter-alia include two cheque leaf. On his continuous persuasion the complainant deliver two blank cheques bearing no. 398666 & 398667 by cancelling the same to him.

2.     On 01/10/2012, the complainant got information from one Hakeem Athar that the cheque given to him was dishonoured for “insufficient fund” as such the complainant immediately rush to OP-3 and enquire about the dishonoured cheque. The staff of  OP-3 informed him that Rs.04,80,000/- was withdrawn on 28/09/2012 by one Sh. Ajith Singh. The complainant lodged a complaint regarding the illegal withdrawal of the amount, by unknown person from his Saving Account with P.S. Welcome Colony, North-East, Delhi vide FIR No.342 dt. 18.10.2012.  The complainant also lodged a complaint with Commissioner of Police as well as DCP, North-East, but all in vain.   

3.     It is alleged by the complainant that the due to deficiency in services on the part of OP-3, the cheque leaf in question was misused and tampered due to which, the accused succeeded in encashing a sum of Rs.4,80,000/- in his favour.  It is further alleged that despite lodging the complaint with the bank no efforts were made by the OP bank to recover the amount, hence this complaint.

4.     Complaint has been contested by all the OPs. In its written statement OPs have stated that the complainant has not disclosed in the complaint that whether the cheque in question was signed in blank, or payee’s name amounts in words and figure were filled before giving the cheque to the person.  The OP also sought the same information from the complainant but he has not responded to the same till date.  It is submitted that the cheque was tampered but there is no entry in the cheque which shows that the same was tampered/defaced/de-filled.  It is further stated that the complainant has failed to take reasonable care and due diligence and handed over the cheque negligently to a stranger for which OPs cannot be held liable and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

5.     Both the parties have filed their evidences by way of affidavit

6.     We have heard argument advance at the Bar and have perused the record.

7.     Perusal of  the present complaint shows that the case involves the complicated question of facts  on various issues such as  (i) whether the blank or filled cheque was issued to the stranger by the complainant as alleged in the complaint.  ii) whether the cheque in question in question  was tampered/defaced/de-filled  by the official of the OP or some other person in connivance with the official of the OP.  All the issues referred herein  requires elaborate evidence which cannot be dealt in summary proceedings by the District Fora.

8.     It is apparent that the complainant is asking for the relief which require lengthy evidence and cross-examination.  The cross-examination of witness is life blood of legal system.  It is only way a Judge can decide, whom to trust.  An answer during the cross-examination may wreck one’case.  The court duty is got get to the bottom of the matter.  The Civil Court not being a summary trial court can easily go the root of every problem.  Admittedly, the Consumer Forum deals with the complaint in a summary proceeding, where cases involve a great deal of evidence, the same cannot be adjudicated upon by the Forum & for which the party concerned has to approach the civil court where elaborate procedure including recording of evidence is followed.

9.     In case titled Punjab Lloyd Ltd. Vs Corporate Risks India Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 2 SCC 301, it was held that the complicated question of law should be decided by the regular court. It further held that the decisive test in not the complicated nature of question of fact and law arising for decision. In another case titled LIC & Ors. Vs Surinder Kaur & Ors. Civil Appeal No.5334 or 2006 (Arising or of SLP (c) No.17866 of 2005) decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 01.12.2006, it has been held that complex question of facts cannot be decided by the consumer forum under the Consumer Protection Act and such arises can be subject matter of regular Civil Court.

10.    In view of the above, we are inclined to hold that that the present complaint involves complicated questions of facts as well as law.  The issues raised in the present complaint required elaborate oral and documentary evidence and the examination of the witnesses for the proper disposal of the matter.  The proper forum for adjudication of the present complaint is Civil Court.  Consumer Protection Act being the special Act where only summary proceedings are taken up and as such the adjudication of the present complaint is beyond the scope and jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum, hence the present complaint is dismissed with liberty to the complainant to approach the Civil Court as per law. So far as the question of limitation is concerned, complainant can take advantage of the decision rendered in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institution 1995 (3) SCC 583.  

A copy of this order each be sent to both parties free of cost by post.  Orders be also sent to www.confonet.nic.in. File be consigned to record room.

Pronounced in open Forum on 13/09/2019.

 

(ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

PRESIDENT

                                (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                           (H M VYAS)

                                      MEMBER                                                         MEMBER