Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – s.2(1)(g) – Respondentcomplainant filed a complaint against the appellants-bank alleging that two demand drafts of Rs.5 lakhs and Rs.3 lakhs, totalling Rs.8 lakhs, were not credited to his company’s account in the name of “D-Cube Construction (P) Ltd.” with the bank – The complainant alleged that he had requested the bank to credit the drafts to the said account, but the bank failed to do so – The complainant sought direction from the State Commission to re-credit the drafts to his account – State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission allowing the complaint, directed the appellant to pay the Respondentcomplainant rupees eight lakhs along with compensation of rupees One Lakh – National Commission affirmed the State Commission’s order – On appeal, held: One current account was in the name of “D-Cube Construction (P) Ltd.” and other was in the name of “DCube Construction” – Also, appellant-bank had received a letter from D-Cube Construction (P) Ltd. giving “no objection” for opening the current account in the name of “D-Cube Construction” – The two demand drafts in question were issued in the name of “DCube Construction” and the amounts of the said drafts were credited in account of “D-Cube Construction” only – Therefore, there is no “deficiency in service” as per s.2(1)(g) on the part of employees of the bank, appellant acted in a bona fide manner and followed due procedure – No room to draw presumptions u/s 2(1)(g) – Burden to prove deficiency would be on the person alleging it – Respondentcomplainant failed to discharge his burden of prove that there was a deficiency in service on the part of the employees of the appellantsbank – Orders passed by State Commission and National Consumer Commission set aside.
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Nature of proceedings before the Commission – The proceedings before the Commission being summary in nature, the complaints involving highly disputed questions of facts or the cases involving tortious acts or criminality could not be decided by the Forum/Commission under the Act – The “deficiency in service”, as well settled, has to be distinguished from the criminal acts or tortious acts.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Even if the allegations made in the complaint are taken on their face value, then also it clearly emerges that there was no wilful fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the discharge of the duty on the part of the employees of the appellants’ bank, which could be termed as “deficiency in service” under Section 2(1)(g) of the said Act. As emerging from the record, some disputes were going on amongst the Directors of the Company and one of the Directors, if allegedly had committed fraud or cheating, the employees of the bank could not be held liable, if they had acted bona fide and followed the due procedure. [Para 11][695-G; 696-A]
2. The proceedings before the Commission being summary in nature, the complaints involving highly disputed questions of facts or the cases involving tortious acts or criminality like fraud or cheating, could not be decided by the Forum/Commission under the said Act. The “deficiency in service”, as well settled, has to be distinguished from the criminal acts or tortious acts. There could not be any presumption with regard to the wilful fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance in service, as contemplated in Section 2(1)(g) of the Act. The burden of proving the deficiency in service would always be upon the person alleging it. In the instant case, respondent-complainant having miserably failed to discharge his burden to prove that there was a deficiency in service on the part of the employees of the appellants-bank within the meaning of Section 2(1)(g) of the Act, his complaint deserved to be dismissed. [Paras 12, 13][696-B-D]
Ravneet Singh Bagga v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines and Anr. (2000) 1 SCC 66 : [1999] 4 Suppl. SCR 320 – relied on.
Branch Manager, Indigo Airlines Kolkata and Anr. v. Kalpana Rani Debbarma and Ors. (2020) 9 SCC 424 : [2020] 3 SCR 389; Kerala State Cooperative Marketing Federation v. State Bank of India and Ors. (2004) 2 SCC 425 : [2004] 2 SCR 1; Indian Overseas Bank v. Industrial Chain Concern (1990) 1 SCC 484 : [1989]
2 Suppl. SCR 27; Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Munimahesh Patel (2006) 7 SCC 655 : [2006] 6 Suppl. SCR 30 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.