VIVEK Vs. UCO BANK, INDORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD .

(2.) THE claim of the appellant was resisted by respondent -Bank before the District Forum and it was contended that the loan in question was taken by Shivlal Vaid for the benefit of the minor and that the said FDRs were also pledged by way of security for the said loan. It was further contended that the case involves complicated questions of fact and law and the same cannot be, therefore, gone into in summary proceedings as envisaged by the Consumer Protection Act.

(3.) EARLIER the complaint of appellant was dismissed by District Forum and its order was affirmed in appeal by this Commission, relagating him to Civil Court for redressal of the dispute. However, the National Commission in revision set aside both the orders holding that the dipsute as raised by the appellant - complainant can be adjudicated by the District Forum and that the complainant could not have been relegated to the Civil Court for redressal of that dispute. However, the Forum below again dismissed the complaint this time on merits holding that the loan in question was raised by Shivlal Vaid for the benefit of the appellant (who was then minor) and that there was no deficiency on the part of respondent -Bank.