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

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...