SANTOSH SHARMA Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We are unable to see how this complaint can possibly be brought within the scope of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act provided for consumers redressal. The gist of the complaint is that the Complainant No. 1 had gone to the Rajourie Garden Branch of the State Bank on 7.10.1989 for ascertaining the balance amount outstanding to her credit in her account in that Branch Office Bank. It is further stated that after ascertaining the amount of balance, she reported the same to her husband who made out a cheque for Rs. 6,500/-, got it signed by the complainant No. 1 and with that cheque the complainant No. 1 accompanied by her husband again went to the same branch of the Bank for presenting it and encash. The further allegation in the complaint is that the employee of the Bank sitting behind the concerned counter abused the complainant No. 1 in a very rude manner when she presented the cheque for encashment and when the husband of die complainant No. 1 raised objections against the same an altercation of words took place between the husband of the complainant and concerned employee of the Bank. It is further alleged that thereafter the said employee of the Bank came out of his seat behind the counter and assaulted the complainant's husband in which assault the Chowkidar of the Bank also joined and as a result of the assault the husband of the complainant No. 1 is said to have sustained serious injuries which proved to be fatal.

(2.) The present complaint has been brought against the State Bank of India ' represented by its Managing Director, Chief General Manager and the Manager of the Rajourie Garden Branch as Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 and Respondents Nos. 4 & 5 are said to be the employees of the said Bank who have allegedly assaulted the husband of the Complainant No. 1. Complainant No. 1 has claimed to recover from the respondents a sum of Rs. 17,48,000/- by 'way of compensation for having caused the death of her husband.

(3.) It is common ground before us that the police investigated into the matter and have registered a criminal case in which respondents Nos. 4 & 5 figure as the accused and the said case is pending frial before the concerned Sessions Judge. The matter is thus sub-judice before the Criminal Court. It is not open to us to hold an enquiry into the factual question as to whether the allegations contained in the complaint petition are correct and true when the matter is pending before the Criminal Court.