Back
CHHATTISGARH STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RAIPUR
Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Agrawal, President;
Mrs. Veena Misra & Mr. R.S. Awasthi, Members
SAGNU RAM KOTHARI & ORS.—Appellants
versus
DENA BANK—Respondent
Appeal Nos. 561, 562, 713, 714, 715, 716, 717, 718, 719, 720, 721, 725,
728 and 1025 of 2003—Decided on 29.7.2004
For the Appellants :Mr. Ayaz Tanvir and Mr. K.N. Bhardwaj, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr. K.S. Gupta, Advocate.
The court emphasized that the matter required a full trial in a Civil Court and could not be adjudicated in summary jurisdiction by the Consumer Fora.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Dismissal of Complaints - Section 15
Fact of the Case:
The complainants had savings Bank accounts or fixed deposit accounts with respondent Dena Bank. The bank refused to repay the amounts to the complainants, alleging embezzlement and collusion with its employee.
Finding of the Court:
The District Forum found evidence of overdrawal by the complainants and dismissed the complaints, stating that the refusal by the bank to repay the amount did not amount to deficiency in service.
Issues: Dispute over withdrawal amounts, alleged collusion, and refusal to refund by the bank.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the complex and disputed questions involved in the complaints cannot be adjudicated in the exercise of summary jurisdiction by the Consumer Fora and the matter will require decision by a Civil Court after full trial.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed as the court found the refusal by the bank to refund the amount to the complainants was justified.
Mr. Justice V.K. Agrawal, President—As all these appeals involve common questions they are being disposed of by this common order.
These appeals arise from the orders in the complaint cases as detailed below:
S. No.
Appeal No.
Complaint No.
Order dated.
1.
561/2003
35/2001
5.11.2001
2.
562/2003
34/2001
5.11.2001
3.
713/2003
38/2001
31.12.2001
4.
714/2003
41/2001
31.12.2001
5.
715/2003
65/2001
31.12.2001
6.
716/2003
62/2001
31.12.2001
7.
717/2003
39/2001
31.12.2001
8.
718/2003
43/2001
31.12.2001
9.
719/2003
37/2001
31.12.2001
10.
720/2003
61/2001
31.21.2001
11.
721/2003
36/2001
31.12.2001
12.
725/2003
45/2001
31.12.2001
13.
728/2003
40/2001
31.12.2001
14.
1025/2003
153/2002
3.1.2003
All the aforesaid complaints have been dismissed by the aforementioned orders by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rajnandgaon (hereinafter called the ‘District Forum’ for convenience). The complainants feeling aggrieved have preferred these appeals under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. Undisputably, the complainants/appellants had savings Bank accounts or fixed deposit accounts with respondent Dena Bank. According to the complainants, different amounts were in balance in the said accounts. However, respondent Bank refused to repay the amounts to the complainants, on the false pretext that there was embezzlement of amount in collusion with the employee of the respondent Bank Madan Mohan Dwivedi and other officer of the Bank. The complainants, therefore, prayed that the amounts in balance in their savings Bank accounts or fixed deposits be directed to be refunded to them with interest thereon.
3. The complaints were resisted by the respondent Bank. In substance, the stand of the respondent Bank was that the complainants colluded with Madan Mohan Dwivedi and other officer of the bank, and had withdrawn much more amount than was deposited in their accounts. It was alleged that Madan Mohan Dwivedi was permitting the complainants and other account holders to withdraw the amount by indulging in underhand dealings and colluding with the account holders. It was, therefore, averred that the complainants were not entitled to get any amount from the respondent Bank.
4. The District Forum in the impugned orders in the aforementioned complaints, found that there appears to be overdrawal of amount by the complainants as would be disclosed from the documents including withdrawal slips filed on record. It was noticed that the signatures on many of the withdrawal slips on comparison by the Handwriting Expert, were found to be that of the complainants in many cases. Accordingly, it was held by the District Forum that the refusal by the respondent Bank to repay the amount did not amount to deficiency in service. The complaints were accordingly dismissed with the liberty to the complainants to seek redressal, from the competent Civil Court.
5. Learned Counsel for the parties were heard and records of the aforementioned cases were perused. As noticed earlier, there is no dispute that the complainants had held savings Bank accounts or fixed deposits with the respondent Bank. However, it was discovered that more amount than was payable to many of the complainants has been withdrawn by them. In several cases the signatures of the dispositors/complainants were got examined by the Handwriting Expert who had opined that the withdrawal slips were signed by the complainants/account holders.
6. According to the respondent Bank many of the complainants and other account holders, withdrew much more amount than was due to them, in collusion with the respondent Bank’s employee Madan Mohan Dwivedi and other officer of the Bank. It is now not in dispute that a report with the police has been lodged against the said Madan Mohan Dwivedi and he is facing prosecution for forgery, misappropriation and embezzlement as above. Civil suit has also been filed by the respondent Bank for the recovery of the amount overdrawn by the account holders including many of the complainants.
7. Thus it prima facie appear
