Can Consumer Forums decide disputed questions of fraud against Bank/ its employees?

 



Shubham Budhiraja[1]

 

Mr. A, NRI, issued 3 drafts for the purchase of 3 flats. Two drafts were of June dated and one is of July. The two drafts were in the name of XYZ builders. The current account no. 100 was in the name of XYZ builders Pvt. Ltd. whereas current account no. 200 was in in the name of XYZ builders opened by Mr. B, as his sole proprietor, when he was director of XYZ builders Pvt. Ltd.

The two drafts got credited to the account of XYZ builders. Mr. A alleged that he was not aware of the separate company account and that director Mr. B has colluded with bank’s employee and has played fraud against him. Hon’ble State Commission and NCDRC allowed the complaint. Hon’ble Supreme Court held that[2]:

 

(i)                 The proceedings before the Commission being summary in nature, the complaints involving highly disputed questions of facts or the cases involving tortious acts or criminality like fraud or cheating, could not be decided by the Forum/Commission under the said Act.

 

(ii)                The “deficiency in service” has to be distinguished from the criminal acts or tortious acts.

 

(iii)              There could not be any presumption with regard to the wilful fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance in service, as contemplated in Section 2(1)(g) of the Act.

 

(iv)              The burden of proving the deficiency in service would always be upon the person alleging it.

 

 

 



[1] Advocate, Delhi High Court [ACS, LLB, BCOM(H)], M:9654055315, Budhirajalawchambers@gmail.com

[2] The Chairman & MD, City Union Bank Ltd. & Anr. v. R. Chandramohan, Civil Appeal No. 7289 of 2009, Supreme Court of India , Judgment dated 27/03/2009

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Whether a person can be appointed as an arbitrator if his daughter is married to the son of the eldest brother of one of the parties in the arbitration proceedings?

ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE: THE UNFERTILE CROP

REPUGANCY UNDER ARTICLE 254 & TEST OF VALIDATING LAW