Man taken to task for filing frivolous case

MUMBAI: Lodging a frivolous complaint cost a resident dear when a district consumer forum ordered him to pay Rs 5,000 for filing a vexatious case against a bank.
According to the forum, Rizwan Hussain from Chandivli had lodged the complaint in an attempt to recover cash from the bank—which was not found guilty—after he failed to do so from a family member. Under Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act (if a complaint is found to be frivolous or vexatious, it will be dismissed and the complainant will have to pay a cost, not exceeding Rs 10,000), the Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum directed Hussain to deposit Rs 5,000 in the Consumer Welfare Fund.The bank has also filed a case against Hussain and his relative in a local court.
The incident goes back to August 14, 2007, when Hussain, the proprietor of Rizwan Roadlines, lodged a complaint with the forum, stating that his nephew Monu had withdrawn Rs 75,000 from his Bank of Rajasthan account. Hussain alleged that on October 10, 2006, he wrote to the bank, asking the officials to stop the payment against three cheques, which were reportedly stolen from his house. Hussain claimed that despite his communication with the bank, the three cheques were cleared and Rs 75,000 was debited from his account. After Hussain served a notice on the bank, the latter intimated that Monu had withdrawn the amount. When Hussain claimed that he had never instructed Monu to take out the cash, the bank filed a statement, saying it was Hussain who had introduced Monu to the officials. They also said a photocopy of Monu’s photograph was also furnished to them and the nephew had withdrawn money on behalf of Rizwan Roadlines several times.
A bank official added that on October 19, 2006, when Monu came to withdraw the amount, they had called Hussain up. At that time, he had told them that Monu was his sister’s son and he had no problem if he took the amount out of his account, the bank stated.
Even as it accepted the bank’s argument, the forum said Hussain had also lodged a complaint against the bank with the Saki Naka police and an inquiry was conducted. However, as Hussain did not cooperate with the police and refused to lodge a complaint against Monu, the case was closed.
The forum also found that Hussain’s statements to the police showed that all the while, particularly during October 2006, Monu had been staying with Hussain. It added that being his relative, Monu used to operate Hussain’s account. “Still, the complainant (Hussain) showed the audacity to level allegations of negligence and deficiency in service against the bank officials,” it added.