Consumer tribunals cannot decide complaints involving highly disputed issues of fact, Supreme Court says
Post Date – 11:45 PM, Sat – 4/1/23
New Delhi: The Supreme Court said the Consumer Tribunal cannot decide complaints involving highly disputed issues of fact or cases involving torts or crimes such as fraud or fraud.
The bench, consisting of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Bela M. Trivedi, said: “The Commission’s proceedings are of a summary nature and complaints involving highly contested matters of fact or cases involving torts or criminal acts such as fraud or cheating cannot be judged by the forum/committee under the Act.”
The bench further added that “underserved, and resolved, must be distinguished from criminal or tortious conduct. As envisaged by section 2(1)(g) of the Act, no intentional fault, imperfection, shortcoming or deficiency of any kind”.
The bench added that the burden of proving deficiencies in service always falls on the person making the allegations.
A complainant claimed that City Union Bank transferred a sight draft of Rs 8 lakh to the wrong account. The complainant lodged a complaint with the State Consumer Dispute Resolution Committee (SCDRC) in 1999.
The National Commission found the bank and its officers to have served improperly and ordered the bank to pay Rs 800,000 and indemnify Rs 100,000 as compensation for the complainant’s mental anguish, loss and hardship.
The chairman and managing director of City Union Bank and others lodged a petition against the National Commission’s order with the National Council for Consumer Dispute Resolution (NCDRC), but their appeal was dismissed in February 2007. They appealed to the Supreme Court in 2009 challenging the NCDRC order.
Lawyers representing the Chairman and Managing Director of City Union Bank and others argue that the National Committee and the National Committee made the mistake of not realizing that, without any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy, the The requirement is maintained by the Appellate Bank and no defect in service as defined in section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 can be presumed.
Counsel further argued that if there was any fraud, such disputes would not fall under the jurisdiction of the State Council or State Council.
The petitioner’s attorney argued that the Supreme Court should not intervene when both courts agreed that the petitioner was liable for improper service.
He further stated that the bank would be vicariously liable for the actions of its employees and that there were clear deficiencies in the services on the part of the bank.
The bench said: “On the facts of the case, even if the allegations in the complaint are prima facie, it is clear that there was no willful fault, imperfection, shortcoming or insufficiency. Section 2(1)(g) of the Act, this could be described as underserved.”
The judge pointed out that there had been some disputes between the directors of the company and one of the directors, and if fraud or deceit was involved, the bank employees would not be liable if they acted in good faith and followed due regulations. program.
The Bench said: “In this case, Respondent-Complainant has tragically failed in his duty to prove that the employee of the Appealing Bank suffered a defect in service within the meaning of Section 2(1)(g) of the Act, and his complaint It was justly dismissed and therefore dismissed. Accordingly, the State Commission and the order passed by the State Commission are revoked and stayed. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.”
