BRANCH MANAGER, UNIT TRUST OF INDIA vs MADHABI GHOSH

THIS is an appeal by the U.T.I. against the judgment and order dated 28.11.1997 directing the appellant who was O.P. No. 1 before the Forum to pay a total amount of Rs. 40,158.87 paise.

THE case of the complainant was that she purchased certificates for Rs. 60,000/- under ULIP-71 Scheme of the U.T.I. To meet exigency of situation she surrendered those certificates in original in the office of the U.T.I. for pre-mature encashment. She having not received the surrendered value of those certificates despite repeated reminders, approached the Forum for payment of the same and compensation. The case of the O.P. was that they had sent the amount by two cheques dated 7.10.1998 under Registered Post to the recorded address of the complainant. On enquiry the U.T.I. came to learn that the said cheques were encashed through UCO Bank, Service Branch, New Delhi on 3.12.1996. According to the U.T.I. the Post Master, G.P.O. New Delhi and Branch Manager, UCO Bank are necessary parties to this proceeding. Moreover, their further case is that the dispute of present nature cannot be adjudicated by the Consumer Forum. According to them only a competent Civil Court having jurisdiction over the place where the fraud was committed, was competent to adjudicate the dispute. They deny any deficiency in service on their part. They have taken the stand that their duty is over as soon as the cheques were despatched by Registered Post and their obligation towards the complainant stood discharged.

The Forum was of the view that despatch of cheques by Registered Post does not discharge the contractual liability of the U.T.I. The Forum noticed that there was deficiency in service on the part of the U.T.I. The Forum also observed that it cannot hold an enquiry into an allegation of fraud inasmuch as it does not come within the ambit of Section 14 of the Act. According to the Forum the U.T.I. has its wide network all over the country. It can chase the culprits and find out who was responsible for the commission of fraud in the matter of encashment of the cheques. The Forum of course noticed that the U.T.I. was not a party to the fraud and so the U.T.I. can very well agitate that they cannot be ordered to pay over again.

THE finding of the Forum has been assailed in appeal. THE learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the observations of the Forum are contradictory. In one place the Forum observed that it cannot hold an enquiry into an allegation of fraud inasmuch as it does not come within the ambit of Section 14 of the Act. THE Forum observed that to prevent fraud the U.T.I. could have devised several suitable measures. THE learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the determination of deception, fraud and cheating will not ordinarily be undertaken by the Consumer Redressal Forum. In this connection, he has drawn our attention to paragraph-8 of the judgment rendered by National Commission reported in I (1992) CPJ 30 (NC), in the case of Debasis Mitra v. Managing Director, Laxmi Varsha Company & Anr. He has also referred to another case reported in I (1993) CPJ 88 (NC) of the National Commission in the case of N. Sibaji Rao v. M/s. Damon Motor Co. & Ors. In the said case it was observed that the Consumer Protection Act and the machinery therein cannot be effectively utilised for determining complicated question of fraud and cheating. In the present case the cheques forwarded by the U.T.I. to the address of the complainant were intercepted and encashed through a Savings Bank Account of G.P.O. New Delhi and UCO Bank, New Delhi. Neither the Post Office nor the Bank has been impleaded in this case. THE U.T.I. is not involved in the matter of fraudulent encashment of the cheques. THEy have despatched the cheques by Registered Post. In our opinion the circumstances in which the cheques were fraudulently encashed and by whom they were encashed cannot be determined by a Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. THErefore, relying on the decision of the Hon''ble National Commission we think that the Forum was not justified in decreeing the claim. THE Forum ought to have relegated the complainant to Civil Court to seek remedy. For the reasons aforesaid we find that the judgment of the Forum cannot be upheld and it requires interference. Consequently, we set aside the impugned judgment and allow the appeal. THE complainant may seek redress before appropriate Forum if so advised. Appeal allowed.