Decided on August 26,2020

AMRIK SINGH Respondents


DEEPA SHARMA - (1.) The present Appeal under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act") has been filed by the Opposite Party No. 1 in the Complaint (hereinafter be referred as "the Bank") against the order dated 10.07.2014 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (for short "the State Commission") in Complaint No.61 of 2013 whereby the Complaint of the Respondent (hereinafter be referred as "the Complainant") was allowed and the following directions were issued: "9. Accordingly the complaint is allowed and the opposites parties are directed to reverse the three entries in his account, vide which the sum of 30,00,000/- stands transferred from his account to M/s Luxmi Narain Farm, Agra, within 30 days of the receipt of the certified copy of this order and they shall furnish corrected statement of account to the complainant within that period after making the said correction.
(2.) I have heard the arguments and perused the relevant material on record.
(3.) It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant Bank that the impugned order is illegal and perverse because the relevant pieces of evidences on record, were not considered while passing the impugned judgement and were totally neglected. It is submitted that the appellant Bank was duly served of the summons of the Complaint but for some reasons could not file its written version and its right to file the written version was closed. The appellant Bank, thereafter, filed a Review Petition, which was dismissed. Although the review application was dismissed, the appellant Bank was allowed to lead evidence by filing affidavit of witness and thereafter was also permitted to file additional documents. It is submitted that despite the fact that this affidavit of the appellant Bank and the documents were on record, the State Commission had committed an error by not taking into consideration the affidavit and the documents on record of the appellant and thus had acted perversely. It is argued that the Complainant had the net banking facility and it is he, who had transferred the amount through net banking. It is further argued that M/s Luxmi Narain Farm was known to the Complainant and that is why in the Complaint M/s Luxmi Narain Farm had been made a party and subsequently before notice could be issued to the appellant Bank, the Complainant had deleted them from the array of Respondents with the intention to avoid fraud or the collusion being found out by the appellant Bank. Learned Counsel for the appellant Bank has relied upon "HDFC vs. Anand Kumar Gupta, Appeal No.227 of 2007" and "Shashikant vs. HDFC Bank (II 2016 CPJ 303); also Shashikant vs. HDFC Bank (SLP Civil No. 12635 of 2017 dated 11.01.2018" and argued that the dispute is of civil nature and not covered under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.