Criminal acts like fraud, cheating could not be decided by consumer forum: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has remarked that cases involving tortious acts or criminality like fraud or cheating could not be decided by the Consumer Forums and deficiency in service has to be distinguished from the criminal actsA bench of Ajay Rastogi and Bela M Trivedi passed these remarks on March 27 order while setting aside an order of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Circuit Bench at Chennai dated February 1 2007The Chairman and the Manager of the City Union Bank Limited have preferred the present appeal against the Judgment and Order dated February 1 2007 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Circuit Bench at Chennai in which it upheld the order dated December 23 2004 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ChennaiThe 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 ForumCommission under the said Act the top court saidThe deficiency in service as well settled has to be distinguished from the criminal acts or tortious acts the top court saidThere 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 21g of the Act The burden of proving the deficiency in service would always be upon the person alleging it the top court saidAlso Read YS Sharmila detained before reaching Hyderabads TSPSC office to protestThe complainant in the case has alleged that City Union Bank had transferred two demands of a total of Rs 8 lakh to the wrong account in the year 1996 The top court noted there were certain disputes going on between the Directors of the said companySome 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 the top court saidThe top court said the complainant have miserably failed to discharge his burden to prove that there was a deficiency in service on the part of the employees of the appellantsbank within the meaning of Section 21g of the Act his complaint deserved to be dismissedThe impugned orders passed by the State Commission and the National Commission are therefore quashed and set aside The appeal stands allowed accordingly the top court saidThis story has been sourced from a third party syndicated feed agencies Midday accepts no responsibility or liability for its dependability trustworthiness reliability and data of the text Midday managementmiddaycom reserves the sole right to alter delete or remove without notice the content in its absolute discretion for any reason whatsoever