THE CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, CITY UNION BANK LTD. & ANR. versus R. CHANDRAMOHAN

Citation: [2023] 3 S.C.R. 688 · Decided: 27-03-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AJAY RASTOGI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
688
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 3 S.C.R.
THE CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, CITY UNION
BANK LTD. & ANR.
v.
R. CHANDRAMOHAN
(Civil Appeal No. 7289 of 2009)
MARCH 27, 2023
[AJAY RASTOGI AND BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.]
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – s.2(1)(g) – Respondent-
complainant 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 Respondent-
complainant 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 “D-
Cube 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 “D-
Cube 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 – Respondent-
complainant failed to discharge his burden of prove that there was
a deficiency in service on the part of the employees of the appellants-
bank – Orders passed by State Commission and National Consumer
Commission set aside.
[2023] 3 S.C.R. 688
688
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
689
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]
THE CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, CITY UNION BANK
LTD. & ANR. v. R. CHANDRAMOHAN
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
690
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 3 S.C.R.
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)

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.