YOGENDRA NATH TEWARI vs Punjab National Bank

THIS is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter called the ''Act'') against the judgment and order dated 5.6.1999 passed by District Consumer Forum, Deoria in Complaint Case No. 357 of 1996.

A complaint was preferred by the appellant/complainant before the learned District Consumer Forum, Deoria with the allegations that the complainant applied for a loan for carrying out business under Unemployment Scheme of the District Industries Centre, Deoria and after approval of the aforesaid application it was referred for sanction of the loan for carrying out business of manufacturing of cement jalli, nad, etc. under the self-employment scheme of the Bank and sum of Rs. 34,000/- was sanctioned in the year 1986. In the account, after execution of the loan agreement, only a sum of Rs. 6,000/- was credited and the remaining sum out of Rs. 34,000/- was never deposited. In lieu thereof on blank papers printed and non-printed signatures were obtained which were subsequently shown as disbursement of money and on account of non-availability of funds the complainant suffered great loss of business and precious time of his life and as such a sum of Rs. 3,51,500/- was claimed as compensation.

The opposite party denied the allegations by filing written statement and stated that a sum of Rs. 34,000/- has been sanctioned to the complainant, which has been withdrawn by him.

THE learned District Forum after looking into the complaint and other materials and hearing the parties dismissed the complaint vide the aforesaid impugned judgment and order. Aggrieved of the same the present appeal has been filed.

CASE has been called out. Mr. M.H. Khan, Counsel for appellant is present but there is no one for the respondent. Consequently we have heard Mr. Khan, Counsel for the appellant and perused impugned judgment and order as well as records available. Finding of the learned District Forum was assailed on the ground that in the instant case through documents available on record, the appellant clinchingly proved that only a sum of Rs. 6,000/- by way of one of the instalments of the loan was granted and the remaining sum of Rs. 28,000/- was never granted due to which the appellant could not run the business smoothly and he had to face mental stress and strain and his future has been wasted. Consequently, he was entitled for compensation, but this aspect of the matter has been totally ignored. Consequently, the dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the allegation in the complaint raised certain complicated questions of facts which could only be invested by the competent Civil Court is not warranted in law. Both the arguments in our view do not survive. The documents filed by the opposite party, Punjab National Bank, clearly reveal that entire payment of Rs. 34,000/- has been made and the documents of receipts are also there. In fact no documentary evidence could be produced by the complainant. Even the question as to whether opposite party No. 3 obtained signature on printed and non-printed blank papers is not a vexed question of facts. There is presumption that whenever a signature is obtained the signatory will sign only knowing the contents therein, whether it has been fraudulently obtained or voluntarily done is a question which can be adjudicated only after opportunity of leading evidence is offered, and a thorough judicial inquiry is done. That could have been done only by the regular Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum is only summary. Thorough and probing inquiry is not the domain of the District Forum. This approach has been focussed in the impugned order. Thus the contrary argument on this score raised by Mr. Khan is of no legal value. There is no infirmity thus in the impugned order. ORDER The appeal is dismissed. Judgment and order passed by the learned District Forum is confirmed. In the circumstances, parties are directed to bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed.