AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THE complaint is made by the complainants stating that the first complainant went to the opposite party''s bank to make some remittance. He was made to wait and when the complainant complained about the delay in returning the passbook, he was treated shabbily and abused by the opposite party and that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. THErefore, the present complaint has been filed.
THE opposite parties contested stating that the 1st complainant is a Court Bird and that it is true that the 1st complainant came to the Bank on 6.6.1997 to make some remittance, but it is not true to say that he was made to wait in returning the passbook or that he was insulted or ill-treated by the Bank staff. The lower Forum dismissed the complaint holding that it is not a case of deficiency in service and that the complainant is not entitled to any relief.
As pointed out by the lower Forum, if we go through the allegations made in the complaint, it is clear that his case is that he was made to wait and that entries were not made in the passbook and handed over to him immediately and that when he pointed out the same and demanded the opposite parties the reason for making him wait, he was ill-treated and insulted by the opposite parties as a result of which he suffered mental agony and loss of prestige. Therefore, the action complained of by the complainant cannot be brought under a dispute falling within the ambit of Consumer Protection Act. If his contention that he was ill-treated and insulted is correct and he suffered mental agony and loss of prestige on account of the same, his remedy is to move the Appropriate Authority or Forum for damages on that account. A deficiency in service cannot be spelt out in the circumstances. More so, when we find that there are allegations and counter allegations, it is not possible for the Forum in a summary inquiry to go into the allegations and find out which version is true. That will entail practically a roving inquiry which is not contemplated nor which would fall within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act. Hence, we have no hesitation in holding that the complaint is not sustainable and the order passed by the lower Forum rejecting the complaint is well made in the circumstances of the case.
IN the result, the appeal is dismissed but in the circumstances, there is no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.