Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 719
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S.G.Pandit, T.M.Nadaf, JJ.
Narlajarla Srikrishna Bhagavanulu S/o Late N. Subba Rao - Appellant
Vs.
State Bank Of India - Respondent
Writ Petition No.5585 Of 2025 (GM-CON)
Decided On : 02-06-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Sri. Manjunath B R, Advocate
Summary consumer disputes cannot address highly disputed facts or tortious acts, emphasizing the necessity of appropriate forums for marital-related grievances under consumer legislation.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(g) - Deficiency of service - Petitioner alleged bank's unauthorized transactions enabled by cancelled GPA, causing mental harassment - Respondent denied claims, citing non-joinder of necessary party and limitation issues - KSCDRC found complaint barred due to non-joinder and delay - NCDRC upheld KSCDRC’s order, indicating inappropriateness of forum for the dispute. (Paras 5-6, 17)
(B) Jurisdiction and Procedure - Summary proceedings before consumer forums are not suitable for resolving highly disputed issues involving marital disputes. (Paras 15-16)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner opened an NRIE account and executed a GPA for his wife, who conducted transactions post-cancellation of the GPA. Petitioner alleged bank's negligence and quantified damages.
Findings of Court:
Both commissions found no deficiency in service, upholding that the petitioner failed to establish grounds for complaint while allowing recourse to appropriate forums.
Issues: Non-joinder of the spouse, limitation of the complaint, and pecuniary jurisdiction were core issues.
Ratio Decidendi: Petitioner could not establish deficiency of service; the proceedings were appropriately handled by the forums based on jurisdictional limits and statutory provisions.
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's allegations of deficiency of service. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. respondents' defense against petitioner’s claims. (Para 5 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. kscdrc’s findings and legal points. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. ncdrc's dismissal of appeal and reasoning. (Para 8 , 10 , 17) |
| 5. legal principles regarding deficiency of service. (Para 15 , 16) |
ORDER :
T.M. NADAF, J.
Though the matter is listed for preliminary hearing, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.
2. This petition is directed against the order dated 29.12.2023, passed in C.C. No.260/2016, on the file of the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (Principal Bench), vide Annexure-B (‘KSCDRC’ for short) and the order dated 25.11.2024 passed in F.A.No.293/2024 on the file of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (‘NCDRC’ for short), vide Annexure-A, came to be dismissed.
3. Sans details a brief outline of the facts leading to filing of this petition, is as follows:
The petitioner filed a complaint before KSCDRC against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 – State Bank of India alleging that the Bank has committed deficiency of service within the meaning of Section-2(g) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (‘Act of 1986’ for short). The case of the petitioner / complainant before the KSCDRC is that he had opened a NRIE account bearing No.30019524023, on 10.10.2005 and had executed a GPA in favour of his wife/Smt.Narlajarla Sarojini Rathnam on 21.10.2005, authorising her to represent before Financial Institutions, however his wife by virtue of GPA, had effected various transactions with respondent bank during the period from 18.05.2006 to 26.03.2011.
4. It is the further case of the petitioner that he had cancelled the GPA, however, the respondents – Bank allowed the wife of the petitioner to effect various transactions on the basis of cancelled GPA, where the respondents–Bank committed deficiency of service resulting in mental harassment and cruelty, which the petitioner has quantified at Rs.18,41,797/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakh Forty One Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety Seven Only). He had also alleged that the respondents-Bank had failed to exercise due diligence in dealing with his monies in the bank.
5. The respondents-Bank upon service of notice appeared through counsel and filed the statement of objections, refuting the allegations made by the petitioner by contending that the petitioner had given a mandate to his wife by way of executing a GPA dated 21.10.2005, authorizing her to represent him before the Financial Institutions. He had also authorized his wife to operate the account held by the him in the Bank and the respondents- Bank had acted under the GPA and not otherwise. It is further stated by the respondents–Bank that, there was some marital disputes between the petitioner and his wife, which he is trying to encash through the Bank. The respondents-Bank specifically contended that the petitioner had approached the respondents–bank and had withdrew FD bearing No.30346538420 on 05.02.2009. The wife of the petitioner by name, Mrs.Sarojini Rathnam, who had operated the account throughout, was not been made party to the proceedings as such, the complaint suffers from non-joinder of necessary party. The value of the claim made by the complainant does not exceed Rs.20 lakhs and the complaint is not maintainable for want of pecuniary jurisdiction. Also stated that the alleged deficiency in service on the part of Respondents-Bank happened on 19.03.2007, 01.04.2007, 31.01.2011, 07.12.2010, 06.01.2011, 12.01.2012 and the complaint was filed on 11.11.2016 which is barred by limitation, even the petitioner had not filed application under Section- 24A of the Act of 1986 seeking condonation of delay to entertain his complaint. The respondents–Bank had categorically denied contents of the complaint and submitted that they have not rendered any deficiency in service as alleged by the petitioner.
6. The KSCD
