Fraud cases requiring detailed evidence cannot be adjudicated under the Consumer Protection Act by the Commission.

1. This appeal has been filed under S.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the "Act of 1986") by the complainant challenging the order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gwalior (for short the "District Commission") in CC No. 424/2011.

2. Briefly stated, the appellant had filed a complaint stating therein that he had received a cheque No. 142097 dated 3.6.2009 of Rs.1,53,379 from its tenant towards rent of the third respondent / Bank of India. He deposited the said cheque with his bank the first respondent / Union Bank of India (for short "Union Bank") where he had account. However, when even a fer lapse of considerable period the amount was not being credited in his account, he wrote a letter to the Union Bank enquiring about the cheque. On receipt of the said letter the Union Bank informed to him that the said cheque is missing.

3. According to the appellant he then enquired about the said cheque from the third respondent / Bank of India. The third respondent / Bank of India informed him that the said cheque has been cleared and the amount has been paid through respondent No. 4 / Laxmibai Mahila Nagrik Sahakari Bank to one "Adhyakshibai w/o Baijnath, R/o Apte Ka Baada, Chitnis Ki Goth, Opposite Ashoka Palace, Lashkar, Gwalior" who had account with the fourth respondent / Co - operative Bank and whose name was mentioned on the said cheque.

4. According to the appellant / complainant the cheque was in his name and by making overwriting on it by someone the amount was illegally paid by the Bank of India to one "Adhyakshibai" when the said cheque was presented through the fourth respondent / Laxmibai Mahila Nagrik Sahakari Bank (for short "Sahakari Bank"). Alleging deficiency of service, fraud, overwriting and conspiracy on the part of the opposite parties in making the payment of cheque issued in his favour to one Adhyakshibai the complaint was filed by the appellant against the respondents before the District Commission seeking compensation from them.

5. The District Commission after considering the replies and the evidence led by the parties vide the impugned order recorded a finding that how the cheque had gone in the hands of alleged unauthorized person and in what circumstances, the amount was drawn and credited in the name of one Adhyakshi Bai w/o Baijnath is a matter of detailed evidence and the allegations of fraud and conspiracy cannot be enquired into under the Act of 1986. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has filed this appeal.

6. Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that as there was clear deficiency on the part of respondent No. 1 in misplacing the cheque after receiving it, leading to the forgery being committed by someone by getting the cheque and by making over - writing on it and thus, for the said negligence on the part of first respondent / Union Bank they should be held liable for the loss caused to the appellant / complainant. He also equally alleged negligence on the part of respondent No. 3 in making payment on the basis of a cheque on which there was overwriting. He alleged that the fourth respondent fraudulently opened the account of one Adhyakshibai to enable her to receive the amount of cheque fraudulently.

7. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 has argued that the cheque was never received in the Union Bank and some one to whom it was entrusted by the appellant to deposit with the Union Bank must have misused it by making overwriting and committing fraud. He argued that the allegations of fraud, overwriting and conspiracy cannot be decided in the summary proceedings. He thus supported the imp