Back
JHARKHAND STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Dhananjay Prasad Singh, President and Mohan Lal Roy, Member
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK - Appellant
Versus
SANTOSH KUMAR - Respondent
Decided on : 15-10-2012
Mr. Rajiv Kr. Sinhha and Mr. P.K. Pans, Advocates, for the Appellant; Mr. Praveen Jaiswal and Mr. R. Kumar, Advocates, for the Respondent
A bank engaged in commercial activities cannot be considered a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act.
Headnote:
Deficient Services - Legal Opinion - The court considered whether the bank, as a consumer, could seek remedy for the deficient legal opinion provided by the advocate. It held that the bank, despite being engaged in commercial activities, could not be considered a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. The court directed the dismissal of the complaint with liberty for the bank to seek proper remedy before the appropriate forum as per law.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, Punjab National Bank, filed a complaint against an advocate for alleged deficient services in providing legal opinions, resulting in heavy loss to the bank.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the bank, despite being engaged in commercial activities, could not be considered a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. It directed the dismissal of the complaint with liberty for the bank to seek proper remedy before the appropriate forum as per law.
Issues: The issues included whether the advocate provided legal opinion to the bank against payment and whether the bank could be considered a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the bank, despite being engaged in commercial activities, could not be considered a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the complaint with liberty for the bank to seek proper remedy before the appropriate forum as per law.
ORDER
Dhananjay Prasad Singh, President - This complainant has been filed by M/s. Punjab National Bank, Argora Branch against Shri Santosh Kumar, Advocate through its Chief Manager on 14.12.2010 for alleged deficient services between 21.5.2007, 30.5.2007 and 19.6.2007.
2. Admitted case between the parties are that Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate was on the panel of the complainant, providing legal services to the bank and opinions as and when sought. It is further admitted case that the complainant bank obtained his legal opinions in three cases before advancing loans to Shri Satish Sahu, ARK Marketing Complex and Sapna Trading Company. As per complainant the opposite party Shri Santosh Kumar submitted all opinion and report suggesting that the documents produced were genuine and loan may be advanced by the bank. This opinion was later on found wrong, based on forged and fabricated documents resulting in heavy loss to the bank. Therefore, this complaint was lodged on 14.12.2010 before this Commission on various grounds and serious allegations.
3. In the complaint specific allegations of serious lapses in submitting the opinion by the opposite party has been highlighted in Paras (A), (B) and (C). According to the complainant the opposite party has prepared the forged documents for M/s. Sapna Trading Company. It is also alleged that in M/s. A.R.K. Marketing complex's case the documents relied upon by Shri Santosh were apparently interpolated and doubtful. As such the opposite party Shri Kumar wilfully gave opinions which were deficient and against the interest of the bank causing a total loss of Rs. 68,64.000.
4. The complaint was lodged for directing the opposite party to pay Rs. 68,64,000 to the bank with interest with other reliefs. The bank filed photo copies of the opinion and documents on which such opinions dated 21.5.2007, 30.5.2007 and 19.6.2007 were submitted to the bank.
5. The opposite party Shri Santosh Kumar appeared on notice only on 12.7.2011 after the complainant filed affidavit regarding serving the notice on him. He filed written show cause on 5.9.2011 raising various objections like no consideration was paid, the issues required detailed evidence. It also stated that the bank has already started debt recovery process from these loanees vide cases A111/10,138/10 and 177/10. It is further stated that criminal cases are further initiated against the concerned persons who be added as necessary parties in this proceeding. It is further stated that the opposite party has provided best possible legal services with due diligence and in good faith on the basis of document provided by the bank. He tried to justify his opinions without deficiency in his services through six pages in ten paras which are certainly out of context for this case. They are against his own admission that the complainant bank had to lodge criminal cases and further initiate the debt recovery process for these loans from these beneficiaries.
6. The complainant has filed his affidavited evidence on 24.10.2011 and on the same day opposite party filed the counter evidence on oath. Then on 22.12.2011 complainant filed copies of certain documents demanded by the opposite party Shri Kumar. All these documents are subject matter of criminal proceedings and also part of debt recovery suit. These materials are beyond the jurisdiction of the Commission and out of context.
Issue No. 1
7. Has opposite party provided legal opinion to the bank against payment. In this context it is admitted fact that Shri Santosh Kumar, opposite party, was engaged by the bank as panel Lawyer and he has given the controversial opinions on the basis of which loans were granted in the three cases. These loans being advanced on the basis of his openions are presently subject matter of civil and criminal cases. In such facts the plea that the bank has obtained these advice without payments are fit to be rejected. An Advocate specifically on panel of the bank would not give advice and opinion
