A J ANAND Vs. MANAGER INDIAN BANK CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This complaint has been filed by Lt. Col. A. J. Anand against the Indian Bank, defendant, alleging that the defendant did not send the statements of his bills-purchase account and current account to him, that it failed to credit a cheque of Rs.50,000/- received by him from HMT and deposit to his account; that his account had not been properly maintained by the Bank and the irregularities therein were not explained to him on account of which he suffered financial loss. He has prayed that the Bank be directed to correct the irregularities in the bills-purchase account and current account and pay the amount which is due to him. The complaint has been contested by the Bank. It is inter alia pleaded that the complainant filed a suit No.190/85 for rendition of accounts by making similar allegations on 16.11.85. The suit has been dismissed by the Court with costs on 30.1.88. It is alleged that the allegations in the present case are the same which were those in the earlier suit and, therefore, the Commission has no jurisdiction to try the present complaint. It is further pleaded that the Bank filed a suit (suit No.290/83) for recovery of Rs.86,416.34 against M/s. Skipper Transporters and others in the Civil Court at Chandigarh. The complainant was a partner of the said firm. The said suit was contested by the complainant and other account holders. That was decreed by Subordinate Judge, Chandigarh on 24.9.85 in favour of the Bank. The Bank has filed execution petition against M/s. Skipper Transporters and others, which is now pending in the Court of Addl. District Judge, New Delhi. M/s. Skipper Transporters filed an appeal against the said judgment and decree of the trial Court in the Punjab and Haryana High Court which was transferred to District Sessions Judge, Chandigarh for disposal. It is alleged that the subject-matter of the present complaint is the same, as that of the suit. Thus the matter in dispute is sub judice before the competent Civil Court Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to file the present complaint. The complainant, in his rejoinder, admitted that the appeal at the complainant is pending in the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Chandigarh. He, however, insists that he has got a right to claim accounts from the defendant Bank. We have seen the papers filed by the complainant alongwith his complaint as Annexures. The complaint and Annexures run on 230 pages. The written statement filed by the Bank runs on 13 pages. From the pleadings it is clear that the parties have been litigating regarding the same matter in the Civil Court for the last many years. In one of the litigations even the appeal is pending before the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh for disposal. The other suit, which the complainant filed against the Bank was dismissed and he did not go up in appeal against that judgment. The matter involved in the case is regarding rendition of accounts which has already been decided by the Civil Court by recording evidence. It is well settled that the matter here cannot be decided afresh by us after the Civil Court has pronounced on it. It is also relevant to point-out that without recording evidence and going through a large number of documents, it is not possible to decide the matter by the Commission, which is required to decide the disputes within a short period. The question involved are also of complex nature. After taking into consideration all the facts, we are of the opinion that the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this short ground. A similar matter came up before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Special Machines V/s. Punjab National Bank and Ors,1991 CPJ 78. (NC) The Commission in that case observed as follows: "from the foregoing pleas put forward by the complainant as grounds for showing that the plaintiff has no prima facie case in the suit which have undoubtedly to be treated as an integral part of his defence to the suit in the absence of any written statement having been filed by him, it is manifest that there is clear overlapping and inter wining of the questions arising for determination in the suit and those which are sought to be adjudicated in the present complaint. The matter is thus sub judice before the ordinary Civil Court and hence we do not consider it right and proper to enter upon an adjudication of the merits of the present complaint. We also find that there is force in the submissions made on behalf of the respondent Bank that having regard to the complex nature of the questions of fact and law arising for determination in the light of the elaborate pleadings and documents filed by both sides, it will not be possible to satisfactorily decide the issues involved in summary time-bound proceedings before this Commission. The complaint-petition runs into 70 pages and the petitioner has produced along with the complaint several Annexures and documents which cover about 228 pages. The complainant has also filed a rejoinder with 54 Annexures as well as a further 'reply' running into 196 pages". "the procedure for disposal of complaints under the Act has been laid down in Sec.13 of the Act, the provisions of which are made applicable to proceedings before the National Commission by Rule 14 (2) of the Consumer Protection Rules, 1987. Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Sec.13 of the Act show beyond doubt that the statute does not contemplate the determination of complicated issues of fact involving taking of elaborate oral evidence and adducing of voluminous documentary evidence and a detailed scrutiny and assessment of such evidence. It is no doubt true that the Forums constituted under the Act are vested with the power to examine witnesses on oath and to order discovery and production of documents. But such power is to be exercised in cases where the issues involved are simple such as the defective quality of any goods purchased or any shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance of a service which the respondent has contracted to perform for consideration. Even in such cases, if it appears to the concerned Forum under the Act that the issues raised cannot be determined without taking elaborate oral and documentary evidence it is open to it to decline to exercise jurisdiction and refer the party to his ordinary remedy by way of suit. We are accordingly of the opinion that in view of the complex nature of the questions of fact and law arising in the case for the determination for which voluminous oral as well as documentary evidence will have to be adduced and considered involving also the scrutiny and settlement of several accounts which the complainant had with the Bank under various heads for a period of nearly 12 years, no satisfactory adjudication of the matter can be conducted in proceedings under the Act. Hence, we decline to adjudicate upon the complaint and refer the complainant to his remedy before the Civil Court. After making the above said observations, the Commission upheld the preliminary objection raised by the Bank and rejected the complaint the present case is similar to that which was decided by the National Commission and the above observations are fully applicable to it. Therefore, we reject the complaint with no order as to costs. Complaint rejected.