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

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court. "We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said. The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: "Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal...

Christian who reconverts as Hindu SC will get quota benefits

Amid the controversy over “ghar wapsi”, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person who “reconverts” from Christianity to Hinduism shall be entitled to reservation benefits if his forefathers belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the community accepts him after “reconversion”. Citing articles by B R Ambedkar and James Massey, and reports by Mandal Commission and Chinappa Commission, the court said: “There has been detailed study to indicate the Scheduled Caste persons belonging to Hindu religion, who had embraced Christianity with some kind of hope or aspiration, have remained socially, educationally and economically backward.” The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda held that a person shall not be deprived of reservation benefits if he decides to “reconvert” to Hinduism and adopts the caste that his forefathers originally belonged to just because he was born to Christian parents or has a Christian spouse. Expanding the scope of a previous Constitution benc...