PRAHLAD CHAND RATHI vs DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LTD

HEARD. BY the order impugned the Forum below has dismissed complaint of appellant claiming payment of amount of maturity under some FDs, relegating the appellant to his remedies in Civil Court.

THE payment of the amount of FD was refused by the respondent-Bank mainly on the ground that these FDs were issued by the then officers of the Bank even when no amount was deposited by the appellant with the Bank. According to the Forum below the case involved complicated question of law and facts requiring detailed evidence to be taken which is not possible in summary proceedings as envisaged by Consumer Protection Act. Hon''ble the Supreme Court in the case CCI Chambers Co-op. Hsg. Society Ltd. v. Development Credit Bank Ltd. , III (2003) CPJ 9 (SC)=v (2003) SLT 185, in a matter where genuineness of certain cheques was in question and where the NCDRC has relegated the complainant to his remedies before the Civil Court, observed: "it cannot be denied that Fora at the National level, the State level and at the District level have been constituted under the Act with the avowed object of providing summary and speedy remedy in conformity with the principles of natural justice, taking care of such grievances as are amenable to the jurisdiction of the Fora established under the Act. These Fora have been established and conferred with jurisdiction in addition to the conventional Courts. The principal object sought to be achieved by establishing such Fora is to relieve the conventional Courts of their burden which is ever increasing with the mounting arrears and where at the disposal is delayed because of the complicated and detailed procedure which at times is accompanied by technicalities. Merely because recording of evidence is required, or some questions of fact and law arise which would need to be investigted and determined, cannot be a ground for shutting the doors of any Forum under the Consumer Protection Act to the person aggrieved. "

Hon''ble the National Commission in case of Allahabad Bank v. Shiv Swarup Shrivastav, I (2007) CPJ 221 (NC), has held that where there has been misappropriation of sum by Bank employee, within scope or course of employment the respondent-Bank is vicariously liable for the loss caused to the customer on account of said misdemeanour or negligence of employee. In the instant case also, therefore, the question involved in the case ought to have been decided by the District Forum and if need be so, further evidence could be taken. In our view, therefore, it was wrong on the part of District Forum to relegate the appellant to his remedies in Civil Court. The dispute as projected by the appellant-complainant constituted a "consumer dispute" relating to Banking services and should have been, therefore, decided on merits after taking evidence of both the parties.

WE thus set aside the impugned order and remand the case back to the District Forum, Ujjain for decision afresh in accordance with law. The parties may be permitted to adduce additional evidence if so required, by them. Both parties are directed to appear before the District Forum, Ujjain on 20. 2. 2008. No order as to costs. Appeal allowed.