BRIGHT TRANSPORT CO. Vs. SANGLI SAHAKARI BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In CC No. 286/2011, the complainant company has made a claim of Rs. 1,27,35,431.59 along with interest @ 24% p.a. besides a compensation of Rs. 50,00,000 for pain, suffering and mental agony. In CC No. 287/2011, he has made a claim of Rs. 63,14,267.28 along with interest @ 24% p.a. besides a Compensation of Rs. 50,00,000 for pain, suffering and mental agony. These amounts are claimed by the complainant from the opposite party, Sangli Zila Sahakari Bank Ltd., a cooperative bank existing in Sangli District, Maharashtra where the complainant had a current account with overdraft facility in connection with its business. These amounts are claimed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party Bank and its official in encashing and making payment of several cheques allegedly bearing forged signature of the complainant over a period of four years from 2005 to 2009. The precise allegation of negligence is that officials of the Bank did not exercise due care in comparing the signatures on the cheques from the specimen signature of the Director of the complainant. It is, however, averred in the complaint that the matter was reported to the Bank Authorities and also to the Police. FIR was registered vide No. 13110 dated 18.1.2010 under Sections 408, 465, 407, 468, 471, 420 and 34 of IPC and a charge-sheet stands filed and the same is awaiting trial by the concerned criminal Court. According to the complainant, it has been established by the evidence of handwriting expert that the signatures on the cheques were forged. We have heard Mr. Abhinay Ramkrishna, Advocate for the complainants on the question of maintainability of these complaints before a consumer Fora like this Commission. In our view, having regard to the nature and gamut of controversy which is raised in the present complaints, it cannot be decided by a consumer Fora in exercise of its summary jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 because the trial of such complaints would require voluminous documentary and oral evidence including cross-examination of various witness and experts, which cannot possibly be done by this Commission in such a jurisdiction. The trial and disposal of such complaints cannot be done within the stipulated time span of 3 or 4 months or even a year or so as it would require protracted trial and hearings. Needless to mention that hundreds of complaints are still pending disposal in this Commission for over a decade.

(2.) That apart we may notice that as per the complainant's own showing they had availed the sendees of the opposite party bank in connection with their business/of commercial purpose inasmuch as it was having a current account with overdraft facility in the OP Bank and the alleged negligence/deficiency in service is relatable to the said business transactions. For this reason also we are of the view that the complainant is not a 'consumer' within the provisions of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, more particularly as it stands after its amendment by the Amending Act 62 of 2002 effective from 15.3.2003.

(3.) Yet another reason why we would discourage the complainant from approaching this Commission is that as per the complainants there are several acts of forgery for which a criminal trial is pending. The said case is yet to be decided and the decision of the criminal cases may have a bearing on the claims made by the complainants in these complaints. This Commission has consistently taken the view in the past that complaints which are based on allegations of fraud, forgery, etc. and trial of which would require voluminous evidence and consideration are not to be entertained by this Commission.