[ad_1]
New Delhi, April 1 (). The Supreme Court has observed that consumer courts cannot decide highly disputed questions of fact or complaints relating to criminal cases such as fraudulent acts or cheating.
A bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Bela M Trivedi observed: The proceedings before the Commission being summary in nature, complaints relating to highly disputed questions of facts or criminal matters such as fraudulent acts or cheating cannot be decided by the Forum/Commission under the said Act. can be done.
The bench further said, deficiency in service, as also fixed, has to be distinguished from criminal acts or tortious acts. As per section 2(1)(g) of the Act, no inference can be made as to willful fault, incompleteness, deficiency or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner in which the service is performed.
The bench said that the burden of proving deficiency in service would always be on the person making the allegation. The complainant had alleged that City Union Bank had transferred a demand draft of Rs 8 lakh to the wrong account. The complainant filed a complaint with the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) in 1999. The State Commission found the bank and its official guilty of defective service and ordered the bank to pay Rs 8 lakh along with compensation of Rs 1 lakh for mental agony, loss and hardship to the complainant.
The chairman and managing director of City Union Bank and others moved the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) against the state commission’s order, but its appeal was dismissed in February 2007. An appeal was filed by him in 2009 before the apex court challenging the NCDRC order. Counsel representing the CMD, City Union Bank and others submitted that the State Commission and the National Commission were in error in not appreciating the fact that in the absence of any defect, incompleteness, deficiency or inadequacy in the performance , which was required to be maintained by the appellants’ bank, could not be held to constitute deficiency in service as defined under section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The counsel further argued that if any fraud was committed, such disputes would not fall within the jurisdiction to adjudicate the State Commission or the National Commission. Counsel for the complainant submitted that when the two forums have consistently held the appellants liable for deficiency in service, the Apex Court should not interfere in the same. He further stated that the bank would be indirectly liable for the acts of its employees and there was clear deficiency of service on the part of the bank.
The bench observed: As far as the facts of the present case are concerned, even if the allegations made in the complaint are to be taken at face value, it also clearly emerges that the discharge of duty on the part of the employees of the bank of the appellants There was no willful mistake, incompleteness, deficiency or inadequacy which could be considered as deficiency in service under section 2(1)(g) of the said Act.
The bench said that there was some dispute going on between one of the directors of the company that if the alleged fraud was committed, the employees of the bank could not be held liable if they had acted honestly and followed due process. had followed.
The bench observed: In the present case, the respondent-complainant has miserably failed to discharge its onus of proving deficiency in service on the part of the employees of the appellant-bank within the meaning of section 2(1)(g) of the Act. his complaint deserves to be dismissed, and is dismissed accordingly. Therefore, the orders passed by the State Commission and the National Commission are set aside and set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed.
KC/ANM
Follow Niharika Times for all the big news from India and abroad. Like us on Facebook and Twitter . Always visit Niharika Times for latest news.