IMPORTANT POINT
Frivolous complaints cannot be allowed by Consumer Forum.

V. B. Gupta, Presiding Member—Petitioners/Complainants filed consumer complaints before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT Chandigarh (for short, ‘District Forum’) against Respondents/Opposite Parties alleging deficiency in service on their part. The consumer complaints were allowed by the District Forum.

2. Being aggrieved, respondents filed appeals before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh (for short, ‘State Commission’) which vide its common impugned order dated 16.11.2010, allowed the appeals and dismissed all the complaints.

3. Since, facts are similar and common question of law is involved, hence all these petitions are being disposed of by this common order

4. Complaint Case No.814 of 2008 (Bharpur Singh Vs. The Axis Bank Ltd. ) is taken as the lead case.

5. It is the case of petitioner that he had opened an account with Respondent-Bank at Chandigarh and deposited Rs.11,93,304/- in the said account. Subsequently, when he approached the bank for withdrawing the amount he was told that amount has already been withdrawn. He requested the Bank to issue statement of account. When the same was not issued, he served a legal notice dated 30.6.2008 and came to know that Rs.11.83 Lac was withdrawn from his account through cheque No.063989 dated 12.6.2008 in favour of Gurwinder Singh. According to petitioner, he never issued the said cheque allowing the said withdrawal. Therefore, payment was made by Respondent- Bank without properly verifying his signatures on the cheque. Petitioner made representation to the Bank and when no action was taken, he filed consumer complaint seeking refund of Rs.11,83,000/- and compensation of Rs.2 Lacs on account of mental harassment besides cost of litigation.

6. Respondents in their reply submitted that petitioner had opened an account with them but it pleaded that a cheque book was issued to him, out of which he issued the cheque in favour of Gurwinder Singh. On that basis, Rs.11.83 Lacs was transferred to the account of Gurwinder Singh, who is a customer of the Bank. The said Gurwinder Singh was a necessary party because he is likely to throw light on several vital issues and circumstances as to how the funds were transferred in his favour. His presence was likely to expose the facts of the case and may falsify the version of the petitioner. Respondents, prayed for dismissal of the complaint on this ground.

7. It was also pleaded that cheque of Rs.11.83 Lacs was issued by the petitioner to Gurwinder Singh. However, petitioner never reported the loss of the cheque book nor asked for “stop payment”. Petitioner’s contention that no cheque was issued by him to Gurwinder Singh, is therefore incorrect. It was also alleged that respondents reported the matter to the police. The FIR has been recorded and case is under investigation with Economic Offences Wing. Thus, the case relates to forgery of the cheque, in which evidence would be needed and parties are to be cross examined having a lengthy process. Therefore, petitioner should be relegated to the remedy of a civil suit and result of criminal proceedings lodged by the respondents should be awaited. It was also alleged, that signatures of the petitioner on the cheque in question were duly compared by the staff of the Bank and appeared to be similar with the standard signature. Further, cheque itself was issued from the cheque book issued to the petitioner. Thus, there could be no doubt in the mind of the Bank officials not to encash the same. Hence, there was no deficiency in service on their part.

8. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, Chandigarh vide order dated 26.2.2010, allowed the consumer complaint with following directions to the Ops;

“to jointly and severally credit the amount of Rs.11.83 lacs in the saving bank account No.302010100079082 of the complainant on account of making wrongful debit entry dated 12.06.2008 for the like amount in the said account. OPs are also directed to pay to t