Skip to main content

'Can’t resolve cheating cases in summary trial’

The Pune district consumer disputes redressal forum has held that allegations of cheating, fraud and forgery cannot be resolved in a summary proceeding.

"Such matters need detail investigation, inquiry and examination of witnesses for adjudication of dispute," a three-member bench of the forum, headed by its president V P Utpat, has ruled.

In a judgment pronounced on May 16, the forum dismissed the complaint by a Bhosalenagar couple who alleged deficient service on the part of the Bank of Baroda and Bank of Maharashtra branches at Yeshwantnagar and Ganeshkhind Road respectively, following an alleged fraudulent encashment of Rs 3 lakh cheque from their account.

The forum held that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the dispute between the complainant and the two banks involved complicated questions of law and facts that required thorough inquiry, examination of witnesses and the same was not possible in summary proceeding. The forum relied on a August 30, 2000 judgment by the national consumer disputes redressal commission which held that such matters can not be decided by the consumer forum.

In their complaint, Satish S Aurangabadkar and his wife Nandshree had sought the forum's directions to the two banks for refund of Rs 3 lakh with Rs 69,386.30 in interest between October 24, 2008 till February 5, 2010 when the complaint was filed. The couple also sought further interest at the rate of 18% from February 5, 2010 till the forum's order besides Rs 10,000 cost of correspondence, Rs 50,000 litigation cost and Rs 3 lakh in compensation.

According to their complaint, Nandshree, who had an account with the Yeshwantnagar branch of Bank of Baroda, had issued a bearer cheque of Rs 3 lakh in the name of her husband, Satish, who had an account with the Ganeshkhind branch of Bank of Maharashtra. Satish deposited the cheque in his account on October 24, 2008 and nearly three weeks later when he visited the bank, he was told that the cheque had not been credited in his account. Further inquiry revealed that somebody else had encashed the cheque on October 25, 2008.

In the ensuing dispute, the couple alleged that some staffers from the two banks had colluded to effect the encashment. On their part, the banks insisted that the cheque was never deposited and was neither sent for clearance. It was a bearer cheque and they had taken all precautions required for encashment of such a cheque. The matter was even referred to the ombudsman, but there was no relief for the couple, who have also lodged a criminal complaint and moved the consumer forum for compensation.

Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/pune/Cant-resolve-cheating-cases-in-summary-trial/articleshow/47400835.cms

Comments

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even