Consumer forums, being summary in nature, lack jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes involving complex questions of fact, allegations of fraud, or criminal breach of trust, which are better suited for civil or criminal courts.

ORDER

(Per: Ms. Kumkum Rani, President):

1. This appeal has been directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 17.11.2022 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Nainital (hereinafter to be referred as “The District Commission”) in consumer complaint No. 65 of 2021, styled as Sh. Umesh Kumar Pahwa Vs. Chairman, Uttarakhand Gramin Bank and others, wherein and whereby the consumer complaint filed by the appellant / complainant was dismissed with penalty of Rs. 50,000/- and the appellant / complainant was directed to pay half of the penalty amount, i.e., Rs. 25,000/- to respondent No. 3 / opposite party No. 3 and the remaining half, i.e., Rs. 25,000/- was directed to be deposited in the office of District Commission.

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in brief, are, as such that on 30.03.2015, the appellant / complainant got an F.D.R. of Rs. 1,00,000/- prepared from respondent No. 4 / opposite party No. 4 for a term of five years’ on payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- in cash. The respondent No. 4, after obtaining signatures of the appellant on required form; cash / transfer documents; register etc., issued F.D.R. of Rs. 1,00,000/- in favour of the appellant bearing receipt No. 130688; account No. 76009464947; amount – Rs. 1,00,000/-; effective date – 30.03.2015; due date – 30.03.2020; maturity amount – Rs. 1,56,051/-; interest payable @9% per annum. Before issuing the F.D.R., all the required details are entered / filled in the computer, whereupon on the basis of entered information, the F.D.R. is prepared by the concerned official under his signatures. On 03.04.2020, the appellant approached respondent No. 3 / opposite party No. 3 for payment of maturity amount of F.D.R., who showed inability to make the payment of the F.D.R. and after scanning the F.D.R., returned the original F.D.R. to the appellant. On dated 23.04.2020, respondent No. 3 gave information to the appellant on his mobile handset to collect the details of his overdraft account No. 4444269015 from the Branch, which the appellant collected from the Branch. The said details / statement pertain to the period from 30.03.2015 to 31.12.2016, but no satisfactory reply was given to the complainant in regard to the F.D.R. Prior to that, the passbook or statement of overdraft account was never issued by the respondents to the appellant. On asking by the appellant to show the relevant record / voucher in regard to the F.D.R., he was told that he would be informed in 2-3 days’. For not showing the voucher and bank record by respondent No. 3 and not taking any action, the appellant sent complaint letter dated 16.05.2020 and 06.06.2020 to respondent No. 2 and dated 29.06.2020 to respondent Nos. 2 & 3, but inspite of the matter being extremely serious, the respondents tried to misguide the appellant.

3. It was also stated that on 13.07.2020, the appellant received a deceptive reply from respondent No. 3, wherein it was stated that on 30.03.2015, the appellant had applied with Devalchaur Branch for creation of F.D.R. of Rs. 1,00,000/- and for transfer of amount, he had submitted transfer voucher of O.D. account No. 4444269015, but the said amount could not be transferred on 30.03.2015, with the result that account No. 76009464947 opened on the said date, was itself closed by the system, which is against facts. From the perusal of concerned vouc