Consumer forum not empowered to decide cases involving tortious acts or criminality: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently reaffirmed that consumer fora are not entitled to decide complaints involving highly disputed questions of facts or the cases involving tortious acts or criminality like fraud or cheating [CMD City Union Bank Ltd and anr vs R Chandramohan]. .A bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Bela M Trivedi held that proceedings before consumer fora are summary in nature and they can decide on 'deficiency in service'.Further, under the Consumer Protection Act, the onus to prove deficiency of service is on the complainant and there cannot be any presumption on part of fora towards existence of such deficiencies, the Court underlined."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," the Court said..In the present case, the complaint had alleged that the City Union Bank had transferred ₹8 lakh of demand drafts to an incorrect account. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) had found them guilty of deficient service and had ordered the bank to pay ₹8 lakh along with compensation of ₹1 lakh towards 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 to. The matter thus involved allegations of fraud that a consumer fora could not enter, the apex court said.There was no 'willful default or imperfection or short coming' 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 and 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.[Read Judgment]