Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 3138
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
B. Sudheendra Kumar, President, K.R. Radhakrishnan, Member
K.P. Somakumar – Appellant
Versus
Maben Nidhi Limited – Respondent
C.C.No.107/2016
For the Appellants/Petitioners: T.K. Sajeev
For the Respondents: G.S. Kalkura
A consumer complaint involving complex factual disputes, such as allegations of forgery, fraud, and criminal conspiracy, which necessitate elaborate trial and documentary evidence, is not maintainable before the Consumer Commission as its proceedings are summary in nature.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 17 - Maintainability of complaint involving complex questions of fact and law including allegations of fraud and forgery - Proceedings under the Act are summary in nature - Complicated disputed facts requiring elaborate trial cannot be adjudicated by the Consumer Commission. (Paras 23, 24)
Facts of the case:
The complainant deposited Rs. 20 lakhs in fixed deposits with the opposite party. The complainant alleged that the opposite parties, in collusion with an employee, fabricated his signature to sanction loans against the deposits while he was abroad. The opposite parties denied the forgery, contending that the complainant had colluded with the named employee to avail the loans and that the dispute involved intricate factual questions requiring evidence, thus making the complaint not maintainable before the Consumer Commission.
Findings of Court:
The Court held that the allegations of forgery and criminal conspiracy raised complicated questions of fact that necessitated a detailed trial, which is beyond the scope of summary proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act. The Commission ruled that the complaint was not maintainable.
Issues: Whether the complaint, involving allegations of document fabrication and fraud, is maintainable before the Consumer Commission.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a complaint involves serious allegations of fraud, forgery, and criminal conspiracy requiring elaborate evidence and cross-examination, it falls outside the jurisdiction of the Consumer Commission, which is designed for summary proceedings.
Result: Complaint dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of factual allegations regarding unauthorized loan transactions and forged documents. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 2. admissibility of evidence and the need for elaborate trial due to contested facts. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 3. consumer commission lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate complex fraud and forgery cases. (Para 24) |
ORDER
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
C.C.No.107/2016
ORDER DATED : 27.03.2026
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT
SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER
COMPLAINANT:
K.P. Somakumar, S/o Parameswaran, Koramparambil House,
Kodungallur, Thrissur
(by Adv. T.K. Sajeev)
Vs.
OPPOSITE PARTIES:
(by Adv. G.S. Kalkura)
1. Maben Nidhi Limited, represented by its Managing Director (formerly
Manappuram Benefit Fund Limited), Manappuram Finance Limited,
Head Office, Valappad, Thrissur – 680567
2. Nandakumar, Managing Director, M/s. Manappuram Finance Ltd., Head
Office, Valappad. Thrissur – 680567
3. Jyothi, Managing Director, Maben Nidhi Limited, (formerly
Manappuram Benefit Fund Limited), Manappuram Finance Limited,
Head Office, Valappad, Thrissur – 680567
4. Branch Manager, Maben Nidhi Limited (formerly Manappuram Benefit
Fund Limited), Manappuram Finance Limited, Head Office, Valappad,
Thrissur – 680567
5. Haseena, W/o Arif, Thanathparambil House, Kaipamangalam P.O.,
Thrissur – 680681
ORDER
SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER
This is a complaint filed under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The complainant is a depositor of Maben Nidhi Ltd., a company registered
under the Companies Act, 1956.
3. The first opposite party is Maben Nidhi Limited, a company registered
under the Companies Act and notified as Nidhi company. The second opposite party is
the Managing Director of M/s Manapuram group of companies. The third opposite
party is the Managing Director of the first opposite party. The fourth opposite party is
the Branch Manager of the first opposite party. The fifth opposite party is an employee
of the first opposite party.
4. The averments in the complaint in brief are as follows:
The complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.20 lakhs with the first opposite party
as fixed deposits for Rs.10 lakhs each vide fixed deposit receipt numbers
0200030202992788 and 0200030202992787 dated 05.05.2015. The fixed deposits
were for a period of one year, maturing on 05.05.2016. The complainant approached
the Kodungallur branch of the first opposite party on 02.07.2015 to get the name of the
depositor in the fixed deposit receipts changed to his daughters, Anju and Anjali. The
fifth opposite party accepted the receipts and gave a written acknowledgement with
signature on the photocopy of the fixed deposit receipts given by the complainant.
5. The fifth opposite party had promised to return the receipts after changing
the names upon obtaining sanction from the head office, which will take a week's time.
The complainant and his wife went to the USA on 13.07.2015 and returned on
11.11.2015. On seeing the reports regarding the misappropriation at the Manappuram
group of companies, especially Kodungallur branch, the complainant went to the
Kodungallur branch of the first opposite party and enquired about their fixed term
deposits. He came to understand that loans up to 90% were given from their fixed
deposits. As per the proceedings of the loan taken from the fixed deposits, it was
revealed that the proceedings regarding the loans are dated 11.07.2015 and
20.10.2015. It is shown that from the fixed deposit of Rupees Ten Lakhs, Rupees
Nine Lakhs was sanctioned in each deposit. The dates of these proceedings are
16.07.2015 and 20.10.2015. It is stated that the complainant had applied for the said
loan. However, he has not made any such request for loan and he was in USA during
that relevant period. The signature seen in the receipts are fabricated signatures.
6. The complainant filed a complaint before the Circle I
