KARNATAKA BANK LTD. Vs. SHEELA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These cross appeals under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act") are directed against order dated 29.02.2008, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (for short "the State Commission") in Complaint No. C-79/99. F.A No. 200 of 2008 has been filed by Karnataka Bank Ltd., arrayed as Opposite Party No. 2; and F.A No. 206 of 2008 is by the legal heirs of Complainant in the said original Complaint. The other two Respondents in both the Appeals are Corporation Bank Centre, Opposite Party No. 1 and one Anil Kumar, Opposite Party No. 3 in the Complaint.

(2.) Briefly stated, the material facts giving rise to these Appeals are that a cheque dated 08.06.1998 in the sum of Rs. 8,99,571/- drawn on Corporation Bank by M/s Jawala India (Pvt.) Ltd., in favour of the Complainant was allegedly deposited by the Complainant with Karnataka Bank on 11.06.1998. Since the amount of the cheque was not credited to her account, she wrote a letter dated 11.06.1998 to Karnataka Bank and also requested the drawer company to ascertain the fate of the cheque. Enquiries revealed that the cheque had been encashed by someone through a newly opened account with the Corporation Bank. The said Anil Kumar was the introducer of the new account. In response to the Complainant's letters dated 16.06.1998 and 22.06.1998, Karnataka Bank informed her that the cheque, purportedly drawn on Corporation Bank and reportedly deposited with them for collection, had not been received in the Bank. Thereafter, the Complainant, vide her letter dated 23.06.1998, requested the Chief Vigilance Officer, Corporation Bank to depute some senior Inspector from the Head Office to inquire into the matter and fix the responsibility of the Branch Officials, "whose poor supervision had (sic) landed the bank's interest in jeopardy and restore the amount of the cheque together with interest" to her. It appears that on 15.06.1998, the Complainant also lodged an FIR with the police station. On 23.06.1998, the drawer of the cheque namely M/s Jawala India (Pvt.) Ltd. also lodged an FIR with regard to non-payment of the cheque to the Complainant. Having failed to receive a positive response to the legal notices issued on her behalf, to both the Banks as also to the said Anil Kumar, alleging deficiency on the part of the Banks in connivance with said Anil Kumar, the Complainant filed the Complaint in the State Commission inter alia praying for direction to all the Respondents to pay the cheque amount along with interest @ 24%, and compensation and damages amounting to Rs. 5,70,000/-.

(3.) The Complaint was resisted by the Respondents as Opposite Parties. Apart from raising preliminary objection about the maintainability of the Complaint on the ground that: (i) the Complainant was not a "consumer" qua them as she had not hired their services and (ii) the matter of alleged fraud required detailed evidence; it was pleaded on behalf of the Corporation Bank that account of Smt. "Shila" Rani was opened in the normal course, as per the banking norms and procedures and was introduced by Anil Kumar as their old account holder. The stand of the Karnataka Bank was that the cheque in question was never deposited with them for clearance and the pay-in-slip relied upon by the Complainant as proof of deposit of the said cheque did not bear the signatures of either the cashier or any other officer of the bank, which was the normal practice at the relevant time. In his written version, Anil Kumar, while admitting that he did introduce one Smt. "Shila" Rani and not "Sheela" Rani, when she was present in the Bank with her husband, stated that he was neither aware if any cheque was deposited in the newly opened account, nor of any withdrawals from the said account till the time enquiries were made from him by the police. He also challenged the jurisdiction of the State Commission to entertain the Complaint as the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi was already seized of the matter.