MRS. UMA SEHGAL vs Manager, Punjab National Bank

THIS appeal has been filed assailing the order dated 13.7.1999, passed by District Forum, Janak Puri, New Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 1667/1997 - entitled Mrs. Uma Sehgal v. The Manager, Punjab National Bank.

BRIEFLY stated, the facts are, that the appellant had filed a complaint before the District Forum, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''), with the grievance that she was maintaining a Savings Bank Account No. 13378 with the respondent Bank and had deposited Rs. 25,000/- in the said account through her husband Shri K.D. Sehgal on 2.5.1996. However, the cheque for Rs. 78,000/- issued by the complainant in favour of her husband was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds in the account of the appellant as the amount of Rs. 25,000/- deposited by the appellant on 2.5.1996 had not been credited in her account though an entry for the said amount had been made in her pass book, after two days of the deposit of the said amount. Thereafter on 9.7.1996 the appellant had received a letter from the Manager of the respondent Bank requesting her to meet him urgently in connection with her Saving Bank Account No. 13378. On meeting the Manager, the appellant had been informed that some fraud had taken place in respect of the amount of Rs. 25,000/- deposited by her on 2.5.1996 and, as such, he wanted a photocopy of the Bank pass book pages wherein the said entry had been made. Accordingly the appellant had deposited a photo copy of her Bank pass book with the Manager on 14.7.1996. Thereafter, the Manager of the respondent Bank had kept on assuring the appellant that she need not worry as the said amount would be safe with the Bank. However, the appellant had later on been informed that an FIR had been lodged with the concerned police station on 11.1.1997, i.e., more than 8 months after the said deposit. As such, the appellant had referred the matter to the Banking Ombusdman. However, it was intimated by the said authority, vide letter dated 3.2.1997, that the matter being under investigation by the police, the Banking Ombusdman was not in a position to take any view and accordingly the case had been dropped for the time being. As such, the complainant had to approach the District Forum with her complaint praying for directions to the respondent-Bank to immediately return the amount of Rs. 25,000/- together with interest at the market rate of 24% per annum, as well as, Rs. 50,000/- on account of loss of business and Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of mental tension, agony and harassment. The respondent in its reply/written version, filed before the District Forum, raised the preliminary objections that the District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint since the dispute raised was for recovery of Rs. 25,000/- and as such, was not maintainable under the provisions of the Act; that disputed questions of facts were involved requiring elaborate evidence and cross-examination of witnesses and, as such, should have been filed before a Civil Court ; that the complainant/appellant was guilty of fraud and was a co-conspirator having procured false entries in her pass book and such a complaint had already been lodged by the respondent with the Police Station, Rajouri Garden vide FIR 26/1997 which was pending investigation and, therefore, the matter was not amenable to the jurisdiction of the agencies under the Act. On merits it was stated that the appellant had not deposited the said amount on 2.5.1996 as alleged. Furthermore, the appellant had failed to produce the receipt/counter foil of the deposit slip, and in the absence of any such entry in the Cashier''s long book or cash book, the said amount could not be treated as having been deposited in the account of the appellant. As such, the matter had been referred to the police authorities and the same was being investigated into. It was, therefore, prayed that the complaint, filed by the appellant, be dismissed with special compensatory cost in favour of the respondent.

The learned District Forum, however, came to the conclusion that since the appellant had failed to produce the pay-in-slip or the receipt issued by the cashier in token of her having deposited the amount in her savings account and there being no entry of the said deposited amount in the cashier''s long book or the cash book of the Bank, the complaint filed by the appellant was liable to be dismissed.

AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid order, the appellant has preferred the present appeal before this Commission. We have, carefully perused the documents/material placed on record, as well as, have heard the arguments advanced on behalf of both the parties at length. The main contention of the appellant in the present appeal is that in view of the fact that the Manager of the respondent Bank had himself lodged an FIR stating therein that the pages having the entries of deposit of the amount of Rs. 25,000/- in the ledger register of the Bank, had been torn out by some miscreants in mid June, 1996, and the fact that the teller card of the Bank where the amount had been deposited by her husband on 2.5.1996, as well as, the ledger-sheet of the complainant''s Savings Bank Account and her pass book had entries of the said payment, the learned District Forum had wrongly held that the deposit of the said amount had not been established by the appellant. Furthermore, despite her request for directions to the respondent Bank to produce the Teller Card her request had not been acceded to and in the absence of such vital document, the District Forum had come to a wrong conclusion. It was also pointed out that though the amount was deposited on 2.5.1996, FIR with regard to the alleged fraud had been lodged only on 11.1.1997 i.e., after a delay of about 8 months. Furthermore, as per the own statement made by the Manager of the concerned Bank to the police, at the time of lodging the FIR, the ledger having entry of the deposit of Rs. 25,000/- was torn out in mid June, 1996 meaning thereby that it was only after a delay of about a month and half that the said fact was first discovered by the Bank which itself shows the lapse on the part of the respondent.

HAVING considered the facts so pointed out by the appellant, as well as, on going through the copy of the complaint, filed by the complainant, (copy of complaint placed on record) it is revealed that the fact regarding the lodging of FIR and the matter being still under investigation by the police was not taken into account by the learned District Forum as the said facts do not find mention in the impugned order. As such, merely on the basis of the fact that the appellant could not produce the counter foil/receipt of the deposit slip, the learned District Forum should not have come to the conclusion that the factum of the amount of Rs. 25,000/- having been deposited by the complainant in her account could not be established by her. At best, in the circumstances of the case, it can be said that since the matter is under investigation with the police and the results of the said investigation are still awaited, the matter cannot be decided, as it is not clear from the facts as to who is responsible for the alleged fraud relating to the alleged deposit of the amount of Rs. 25,000/- by the appellant in the respondent Bank. Therefore, the matter involves complex and complicated questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated upon by a redressal agency established under the Act. As such no relief can be given to the appellant by a redressal agency established under the Act. However, in the circumstances, the appellant is given the liberty to approach the Civil Courts for adjudication of her grievances being raised by the appellant, if so advised and in such a case she can claim the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act to exclude the period spent in prosecuting the proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, while computing the period of limitation prescribed for such suit, in view of the observations of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in case entitled Laxmi Engineering Works v. P.S.G. Industrial Institute, reported as II (1995) CPJ 1 (SC)=1986-95 CONSUMER 1553 (NS). The present appeal, filed by the appellant, stands disposed of in above terms. Appeal disposed of.