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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...