IMPORTANT POINT
Proceedings before Commission being summary in nature, complaints involving highly disputed questions of facts or cases involving tortious acts or criminality like fraud or cheating, could not be decided by Forum/Commission under Consumer Protection Act--Deficiency in service has to be distinguished from criminal acts or tortious acts.

JUDGMENT :

Bela M. Trivedi, J.

1. The appellants – the Chairman and the Manager of the City Union Bank Limited have preferred the present appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 01.02.2007 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Chennai (hereinafter referred to as the ‘National Commission’) in First Appeal No. 29 of 2005 arising out of the Judgment and Order dated 23.12.2004 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai in O.P. No. 103/99.

2. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the respondent -original complainant Mr. R. Chandramohan had filed the complaint being O.P. No. 103/99 against the appellants – original opponents before the State Commission seeking direction against the appellants to re-credit rupees eight lakhs covering two demand drafts - one bearing No. 166570 dated 28.06.1996 for rupees five lakhs and the other bearing No. 177923 dated 18.11.1996 for rupees three lakhs in his Current Account No. 3600. It was alleged in the complaint inter alia that the respondent-complainant was the Managing Director of “D-Cube Constructions (P) Ltd.” having its registered office at Chennai. Shri R. Thulasiram and Shri R. Murali were the other directors of the said Company. As per the further case of the respondent, a Current Account bearing No. 3600 was opened in the name of the said company with the appellants’-bank on 13.04.1995 and the respondent alone was permitted to operate the said account. During the end of 1996, there was misunderstanding between the respondent and one R. Kularaireman and, therefore, he had written a letter to the appellant no. 2 on 08.01.1997 requesting it not to allow withdrawals from the said current account. It was further case of the respondent that one Ravindra, an NRI residing at Malaysia had purchased three flats in the respondent’s projects and had informed the complainant that he had sent two drafts i.e., draft bearing No. 166570 dated 28.06.1996 for Rs. 5 lakhs and draft bearing no. 177923 dated 18.11.1996 for Rs. 3 lakhs, totally amounting to Rs. 8 lakhs. On the reconciliation of the accounts, it was found that the said two demand drafts were not credited in the said current account of the company opened with the appellant no. 2 - bank. Despite the information sought by the respondent-complainant, the appellant no. 2 did not furnish any information. Subsequently, the respondent came to know through Indian Overseas Bank that the said demand drafts were presented through the second appellant bank for clearing and the same were paid to the City Union Bank, Ram Nagar Branch. The respondent therefore once again requested the appellant no. 2 on 03.08.1998 informing it that the amount of the said two drafts were credited in some other accounts and therefore the same be re-credited in his current account.

3. Thereafter, correspondence ensued between the appellants and the respondent and it was found that a separate account in the name of “D-Cube Construction” was opened and the said two drafts were credited in that account, as the said demand drafts were in the name of “D-Cube Construction”. The respondent alleging collusion and negligence on the part of the appellants filed the complaint before the State Commission.

4. The State Commission allowing the said complaint with cost of Rs. 1,000/- directed the appellants-original opponents to pay the respondent-complainant a sum of Rs. Eight lakhs along with compensation of Rs. one lakh towards mental agony, loss and hardship. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellants had preferred the First Appeal being 29/2005, which came to be dismissed by the National Commission vide the impugned order.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the State Commission and the National Commission had committed an error in not appreciating the fact that in absence of any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the performance, which was required to