9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Complaint of deficiency of service by the respondent-Bank, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission's opinion, Appeal under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Approach adopted by NCDRC, Powers of the fora under the Act, Nature of averments in the complaint, Guidelines for determining appropriate forum, Complicated nature of questions, Premature decision by NCDRC. Comprehensive Analysis: The appellant, maintaining a Savings Bank Account with the respondent-Bank, alleged deficiency of service due to the wrongful debiting of a substantial amount by honoring cheques with forged signatures and altered figures. The complaint included photocopies of the cheques, revealing discrepancies and suspicion towards an official of the bank. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) declined to proceed, citing the complexity of the case and the time required for decision, suggesting the complainant approach a civil court. The appellant appealed under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, seeking a fresh hearing by NCDRC. During the appeal hearing, arguments were presented by both parties' counsels, referring to past judgments to support their positions. The appellant's counsel highlighted the need for the matter to be heard by NCDRC, while the respondent-Bank's counsel supported the NCDRC's decision. The Supreme Court emphasized the establishment of fora under the Act to provide speedy remedies, relieving conventional courts of increasing burdens and delays. The Court clarified that the complexity of evidence or legal issues should not bar access to consumer fora, as they are empowered to follow streamlined procedures. Referring to previous cases, the Court reiterated that fora under the Act have the authority to handle disputes effectively without necessitating lengthy trials, as they are led by experienced individuals. The Court emphasized that the key factor in determining a forum's suitability is whether the matter can be resolved through a summary inquiry, without the need for extensive evidence. The Court criticized the NCDRC's premature decision and directed a fresh hearing, emphasizing the importance of considering both parties' pleadings before deciding on the nature and scope of the inquiry. In conclusion, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the NCDRC's decision, and remanded the case for a fresh hearing in line with the Court's observations. No costs were awarded in the matter, highlighting the focus on ensuring justice and a fair process in consumer dispute resolution under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
|
