JAI LAKSHMI CO-OP. BANK LTD. vs L.C. DHINGRA

THIS appeal is directed against order dated 13.3.1995 passed by District Forum-I, Tis Hazari, Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 1183/1992 entitled Shri L.C. Dhingra v. M/s. Jai Lakshmi Co-op. Bank Ltd.

BRIEFLY stated, the admitted facts of the case are, that the respondent Shri L.C. Dhingra was holding a Savings Bank Account bearing No. 6015 in the appellant Bank. However, on 9.5.1991 when the respondent approached the concerned official of the appellant for getting his pass book updated, he came to know of a transaction whereby Rs. 95,000/- had been withdrawn from his account on the basis of a forged cheque and credited into the account of one Sri Shiv Prasad. The said cheque was not from the cheque book issued to the respondent. Accordingly, the respondent lodged a complaint with the Bank on the basis of which an FIR bearing No. 182/1991, was lodged by the Bank with the conerned police station. The case of the respondent was that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Bank in the circumstances and as such the appellant Bank was liable to refund to him an amount of Rs. 95,000/- together with cost and compensation. The appellant in its reply/written version filed before the District Forum had raised the preliminary objections; that the complaint filed by the complainant was not maintainable, in view of the fact that the dispute was between a member and the society and as such was not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''); that since the matter involves complicated questions of fraud and forgery, the same could not be adjudicated upon by the Redressal Agencies in summary procedure under the Act and as such should be relegated to the jurisdiction of Civil Courts. On merits it was stated that the amounts in question had been withdrawn by the respondent in collusion with one Shri Shiv Prasad in order to defraud the appellant Bank of the said amount. The appellant had further submitted that the relevant records relating to the opening of the account of Shri Shiv Prasad were missing from the Bank and even the address given on the specimen signature card of Shri Shiv Prasad was found to be fictitious.

The learned District Forum, however, in the circumstances of the case came to the conclusion that there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellant/Bank and as such directed the appellant to pay Rs. 95,000/- to the respondent together with interest @ 12% p.a. w.e.f. 19.11.1990 till the date of payment. It was also directed that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 500/- as cost of litigation be also paid to the respondent. However, the amount of compensation of Rs. 10,000/- was to be recovered from the Bank official dealing with the account of the respondent.

AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid order, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant. We have carefully perused the documents/material on record, as well as, have heard the arguments advanced on behalf of both the parties. Insofar as the preliminary objection raised by the appellant, with regard to the bar under Sections 60 and 93 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 1972 is concerned it is pointed out that the Hon''ble National Commission in a recent decision in the case of Smt. Kalawati & Ors. v. M/s. United Vaish Co-op Thrift Society Ltd. reported as I (2002) CPJ 71 (NC)=1986 (2002) Consumer 5793 (NS) has held that provisions of the Societies Act do not bar the jurisdiction of the Redressal Agencies established under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') as the same are not Civil Courts and, therefore, the bar of jurisdiction in terms of the provisions of Sections 60 and 93 of the Societies Act is not applicable to quasi-judicial bodies under the Act. As such the said objection of the appellant is without any basis and is not maintainable in law.

THE appellant has also raised the objection that the matter in hand involves disputed questions of fact and law and relate to fraud and forgery, therefore, the same cannot be adjudicated upon in summary procedure under the provisions of the Act. THE said contention of the appellant is also without any basis in view of the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in case entitled Dr. J.J. Merchant & Ors. v. Shri Nath Chaturvedi, reported as III (2002) CPJ 8 (SC)=IV (2002) SLT 714=1986 (2002) Consumer 6792 (NS) wherein it has been categorically held that even if complicated questions of law and fact are involved, it would not be a ground to hold that the same cannot be adjudicated upon, under the Act. THErefore, the said objection of the appellant is also liable to be rejected. With regard to the merits of the case, it is an admitted fact that an amount of Rs. 95,000/- was withdrawn from the account of the respondent on the basis of a cheque taken out of a cheque book which was never issued to the respondent. Furthermore the fact that the said amount was deposited in the account of one Shri Shiv Prasad, and thereafter withdrawn on not one but four consecutive days and also that the particulars relating to the above said account of Mr. Shiv Prasad are missing from the records of the appellant Bank, and even the address on the specimen signature card of Mr. Shiv Prasad has been found to be fictitious, leads to only one conclusion that all the said activities had taken place with the active connivance of some of the officials of the appellant and since the respondent has suffered on account of the lapses and gross negligence of the appellant Bank he is definitely entitled to be compensated for the loss. Thus we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order of the learned District Forum, which is a detailed and well reasoned order, so as to call for any interference in the same in the exercise of our appellate jurisdiction. Therefore, the present appeal being totally devoid of substance is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly, with no order as to costs. The above mentioned appeal stands disposed of in above terms. Appeal dismissed.