The Supreme Court recently reaffirmed that consumer fora that are not entitled to decide complaints involving highly disputed questions of facts or cases involving tortious acts or criminality like fraud or cheating.
The division bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi & Bela M Trivedi held the proceedings before consumer fora are summary in nature and they can decide on ‘deficiency in service’.
The Court further underlined, under the Consumer Protection Act, the onus to prove deficiency of service is on the complainant and that can’t be any presumption on part of fora towards the existence of such deficiencies.
The Court stated that “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.”
In the present case, the complaint alleged that the City Union Bank transferred ₹8 lakh of demand drafts to an incorrect account.
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) found them guilty of deficient service and ordered the bank to pay ₹8 lakh along with compensation of ₹1 lakh for mental agony, loss, and hardship.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) affirmed the SCDRC order leading to the appeal before the apex court.
The top court noted that a dispute among the respondents existed with respect to ownership of the company to which the amount was to be credited.
The matter thus involved allegations of fraud that a consumer forum could not enter, the apex court said.
There was no ‘willful default or imperfection or shortcoming’ on part of the bank officials, it was held.
“The employees of the bank could not be held liable, if they had acted bona fide and followed the due procedure, respondent-complainant having miserably failed to discharge his burden to prove that there was a deficiency in service, within the meaning of Section 2(1)(g) of the Act”.
The NCDRC & SCDRC orders were, therefore, set aside. Advocate KK Mani appeared for the appellants.
Advocates Krishan Kumar, Neetu Sharma, Nitin Pal, Dheeraj Kumar, Atul Sheopuri, and Muskan Jain represented the respondents.
