Shashi Nandkeolyar, Member

First Appeal No. 138 of 2026 is connected with First Appeal No. 139 of 2026. Both the aforesaid appeals arise out of different impugned orders though both dated 19.11.20 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Gujarat in Consumer Complaint Nos. 275 of 2019 and 276 of 2019 respectively, and they involve identical facts, issues, and evidence on record. Since the essential substratum of the disputes in both appeals is one and the same, the appeals are being taken up together for consideration and disposal. The only material distinction between them lies in the identity of the Respondent Banks and the account numbers: F.A. No. 138 of 2026 pertains to branches of the State Bank of India, whereas F.A. No. 139 of 2026 pertains to branches of Canara Bank. For the sake of convenience and to avoid repetition, the brief facts, submissions, and analysis are being extracted from and referred to primarily from F.A. No. 138 of 2026.

2. The present First Appeals bearing Nos. 138 and 139 of 2026 have been filed by the Appellant, Mr. Hirenkumar Chandulal Aghara, S/o. Chandulal Aghara, aged about 34 years, residing at Jetpar (Machhu), Morbi, Gujarat ["Petitioner/Appellant"], under Section 51 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 ["Act"], assailing the order dated 19.11.2025 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Gujarat ["Impugned Order"] in Consumer Complaint No. 275 of 2019 (giving rise to F.A. No. 138 of 2026) and Consumer Complaint No. 276 of 2019 (giving rise to F.A. No. 139 of 2026) respectively ,whereby the Hon'ble State Commission dismissed both complaints as non-maintainable on the ground of want of jurisdiction. The Respondents in F.A. No. 138 of 2026 are three branches of the State Bank of India ["Respondent Bank"], namely the Regional Business Office 1, Rajkot Branch; the Main Market Bilaspur Branch, Himachal Pradesh; and the Kalighat Branch, Kolkata, West Bengal. The Respondents in F.A. No. 139 of 2026 are branches of Canara Bank ["Respondent Bank"]. The Appellant is common to both appeals, and the Respondents in both matters are public sector banks in whose accounts the Appellant alleges to have deposited a total sum of Rs. 44,55,000/- (Rupees Forty-Four Lakhs Fifty-Five Thousand Only) and Rs. 91,55,000/- (Rupees Ninety-One Lakhs Fifty-Five Thousand Only) respectively, by way of RTGS transactions, under the mistaken belief that the said accounts belonged to Reliance Petroleum Limited, only to discover subsequently that he had been defrauded by third parties who had opened fictitious accounts in the guise of that company.

II. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND GENESIS OF THE DISPUTE

The genesis of these proceedings lies in the month of December, 2018, when the Appellant, Mr. Hirenkumar Chandulal Aghara, a young man of thirty-four years residing at Jetpar (Machhu), District Morbi, Gujarat, fell victim to an elaborate and carefully orchestrated fraud. The Appellant, desirous of obtaining a dealership for a Reliance Petrol Pump in the State of Gujarat, came into contact with certain persons who held themselves out as representatives of Reliance Petroleum Limited and who operated a fake website, viz., www.reliancepetroleum.org, which was a near-perfect mimicry of the legitimate website of Reliance Industries Limited. Through this fraudulent portal and through email and telephonic communications including those from one 'Akanksha Agrawal', who impersonated a Reliance official , the Appellant was induced to deposit various sums as processing fees and security deposits into bank accounts falsely represented to him as belonging to 'Reliance Petroleum Limited'.

Trusting these representations entirely, the Appellant deposited a total sum of Rs. 44,55,000/-(Rupees Forty-Four Lakhs Fifty-Five Thousand Only) through Manual RTGS transactions into two accounts: Account No. 37890546256 held with the State Bank of India, Bilaspur Branch, Himachal Pradesh, and Account No. 37739103163 held with the State Bank of India, Kalighat Branch, West Bengal. It later transpired and was admitted by the Respondent Banks in their Affidavits-in-Reply that these accounts were not in the name of 'Reliance Petroleum Limited' at all, but were held in the names of private individuals: Shri Kundan Kishore Lohra (Account No. 37890546256) and Shri Abhishek Patel (Account No. 37739103163) both fraudsters who had opened these accounts by misrepresenting their identities. Similar fraudulent RTGS deposits were made into accounts maintained with Canara Bank in F.A. No. 139 of 2026, the aggregate amount being Rs. 91,55,000/-.

The Appellant's own RTGS Payment Receipts bore the description 'Reliance Petroleum Limited', and his Bank Account Statement with Shree Rajkot District Co-operative Bank Ltd., Jetpar (Machhu) Branch, reflected this description across no fewer than twelve separate transactions. It should also be noted that upon discovering the fraud, the Appellant lodged FIR No. 07/2019 at the concerned Police Station and issued a legal notice dated 03.10.2019 demanding refund of Rs. 44,55,000/- from the Respondent Banks within 15 days, to which the Banks replied on 19.10.2019 denying all liability. Criminal proceedings arising from the FIR remain pending before the competent court. That the Appellant has already recovered Rs.53,43,000/- through police action and the Magistrate's order. It was subsequently established by the internal cyber inquiry of Reliance Industries Limited that the website www.reliancepetroleum.org was wholly fraudulent and was being operated from outside India using a Singapore-based IP service provider; the website was shut down on 28.12.2018.

It is also a matter of record that through police intervention and pursuant to an order of the Learned Magistrate, Morbi, dated 08.02.2019, the Appellant has already recovered a sum of Rs. 54,43,000/- (Rupees Fifty-Four Lakhs Forty-Three Thousand Only) from the accused persons in the criminal proceedings.

III. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, GUJARAT - IMPUGNED ORDER

The Appellant filed Consumer Complaint No. 275 and 276 of 2019 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Gujarat on 22.10.2019 under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Respondent Banks filed their Affidavit-in-Reply on 03.11.2020, and the Appellant filed a Rejoinder on 27.09.2021. The matter was heard by Hon'ble Mr. I.D. Patel (In-charge President) and Hon'ble Dr. J.G. Mecwan (Member). The following are the relevant findings and the operative order of the State Commission extracted from the impugned judgment dated 19.11.2025 in Consumer Complaint No. 275/2019 (Court No. 01, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat):

                          "7.1. Upon careful perusal of the pleadings, documentary evidence, and the arguments advanced by both sides, the Commission finds that the core issue in the present complaint pertains to fraudulent banking transactions committed by certain third parties who allegedly opened fake bank accounts in the name of Reliance Petroleum Limited and induced the Complainant to transfer large sums of money through RTGS."

                          "7.2. The Complainant has alleged that the opponent Banks failed to verify the genuineness of such accounts and thereby committed negligence and deficiency in service. However, it is an admitted position that the Complainant has already lodged a criminal complaint (FIR No. 07/2019) against the concerned accused persons, and that criminal investigation and proceedings are pending before the competent court. The Complainant has also recovered part of the disputed amount as per the order of the Learned Magistrate, Morbi, dated 08.02.2019."

                          "7.3. In the above circumstances, the primary question before this Commission is not whether the opponent Banks were negligent on merits, but whether this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint when the allegations relate to fraudulent transactions and criminal misconduct by third parties."

                          "7.4. It is a settled principle of law that the Consumer Fora, constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, are quasi-judicial tribunals with limited and summary jurisdiction, meant to adjudicate disputes arising out of a deficiency in service or unfair trade practice in a consumer-service provider relationship. Where the dispute involves complex questions of fraud, impersonation, criminal conspiracy, or forgery, such issues require detailed investigation and appreciation of evidence, which lies exclusively within the domain of the Civil and Criminal Courts."

                          "7.5. The position has been clearly laid down by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in the case of MSTC Ltd. vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd., wherein it was categorically held that 'when the allegations made in the complaint are of fraudulent and criminal nature, the same cannot be adjudicated under the summary jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora, and such matters must be left to the competent civil or criminal courts for proper adjudication."

                          "7.6. The NCDRC further clarified that the Consumer Commission cannot examine or determine and the transaction in question arises out of a criminal act committed by third parties, the criminal liability or the complicity of parties in a fraud, and any such attempt would amount to encroaching upon the jurisdiction of the criminal court."

                          "7.7. In addition to the above, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in City Union Bank Ltd. vs. R. Chandramohan & Anr. [(2023) 7 SCC 775], has reaffirmed the same legal principle. The Apex Court observed that 'cases involving allegations of fraudulent or criminal transactions cannot be decided under the summary procedure of the Consumer Protection Act. The appropriate forum for such adjudication is the civil or criminal court, depending on the nature of the allegations."

                          "7.8. The Supreme Court further emphasized that when there is no direct consumer-service provider relationship Consumer Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain or adjudicate such matters."

                          "7.9. Applying these settled legal principles to the present case, this Commission is of the considered view that the allegations in the complaint primarily relate to fraud committed by third parties and the question of liability, if any, can only be determined upon the outcome of the ongoing criminal proceedings. The opponent Banks have not been accused of any direct fraudulent act; their alleged role is at best incidental, which cannot be established without detailed examination of evidence and witnesses - not permissible in consumer proceedings."

                          "7.10. The existence of parallel criminal proceedings concerning the same transaction clearly bars this Commission from exercising jurisdiction, as any finding herein may prejudice or conflict with the outcome of the criminal trial."

                          "Therefore, in view of the authoritative pronouncements of the Hon'ble NCDRC and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Commission holds that the present complaint is not maintainable for want of jurisdiction, as the subject matter involves criminal fraud and complex factual issues beyond the scope of summary consumer adjudication."

                          "Consequently, without entering into the merits of the case, and solely on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, this complaint is dismissed as non-maintainable."

IV. PRAYER CLAUSE IN THE FIRST APPEALS

The Appellant, in the Memorandum of First Appeal (F.A. No. 138 of 2026), has prayed before this Commission as follows:

                          "It is respectfully submitted that this Hon'ble Commission may be pleased to:

                          a) Set aside the impugned order dated 19.11.2025 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Gujarat in Consumer Complaint No. 275 of 2019;

                          b)Pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

The relief sought in F.A. No. 139 of 2026 is identical in nature, mutatis mutandis, with reference to Consumer Complaint No. 276 of 2019.

V. SUBMISSIONS AND CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANTS:

The Appellant, through his learned Advocates M/s. M.I. Hava & Co., has urged the following contentions:

That the Appellant is a 'Consumer' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, inasmuch as the RBI Guidelines contemplate a consumer relationship between the remitter and the beneficiary's bank in electronic fund transfer transactions, and therefore the Respondent Banks cannot disclaim liability on the ground of absence of direct privity of contract.

That the Respondent Banks were under a mandatory obligation under the RBI Guidelines dated 14.10.2010 to verify the name of the beneficiary account holder for post-credit check and risk perception - particularly given that the deposits were made on no fewer than twelve occasions. The failure to conduct this mandatory verification amounts to gross negligence and deficiency in service.

That the RTGS Payment Receipts and the Appellant's Bank Account Statement clearly described the intended beneficiary as 'Reliance Petroleum Limited', and despite this, the Respondent Banks permitted the amounts to be credited to accounts held by private individuals rendering the Banks complicit in, or at the minimum negligent in relation to, the fraud.

That the State Commission erred in dismissing the Complaint on jurisdictional grounds after a period of six years from the date of filing, causing grave prejudice to the Appellant by denying him a substantive hearing on merits.

That the pendency of criminal proceedings does not, in law, preclude the entertainment of a consumer complaint which is grounded in a civil liability - deficiency in service - which is conceptually distinct from criminal liability.

In support of his submissions, the Appellant has placed reliance on: Uma Shankar Bhatt vs. Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Punjab and Sind Bank, O.P. No. 98 of 2002 (NCDRC) which reads as under:

                          "That a consumer relationship may be established between the remitter and the beneficiary bank in electronic fund transfer transactions, insofar as the beneficiary bank performs a service in the process of receiving, crediting, and handling the transferred funds; and that failure to follow due verification procedures mandated by the RBI may constitute deficiency in service on the part of the receiving bank, irrespective of whether the remitter held a direct account with that bank. "

SUBMISSIONS AND CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT BANKS:

The Respondent Banks, through their respective learned Advocates, have advanced the following contentions in opposition:

That the Appellant is not a 'Consumer' of the Respondent Banks. His account was with Shree Rajkot District Co-operative Bank Ltd. There was no privity of contract between the Appellant and the Respondent Banks, who extended no direct service to him and received no consideration or commission from him.

That Account No. 37890546256 was opened in the name of Shri Kundan Kishore Lohra at Bundu Branch, Ranchi, Jharkhand, on 21.09.2019, and Account No. 37739103163 was in the name of Shri Abhishek Patel - neither in the name of 'Reliance Petroleum Limited'. The Respondent Banks followed all KYC norms and procedures at the time of account opening.

That the RBI Circular dated 14.10.2010, properly construed, places the primary responsibility of providing correct inputs upon the remitter and the originating bank. The receiving bank is required to rely on the account number alone for affording credit; name verification is discretionary, applicable to risk perception particularly for transactions of Rs. 5 Crores and above. There was accordingly no breach of any mandatory obligation on the part of the Respondent Banks.

That the transaction was commercial in nature the Appellant was seeking a petrol pump dealership as a business venture and therefore the Appellant does not fall within the definition of 'Consumer' under the Act.

That since criminal proceedings are pending, the present consumer complaint is premature and not maintainable before this Commission.

That the Appellant has already recovered Rs. 54,43,000/- through police action and the Magistrate's order, which substantially undercuts the case for refund from the Banks.

The Respondents have placed primary reliance upon the following authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in The Chairman & Managing Director, City Union Bank Ltd. & Anr. vs. R. Chandramohan (2023) 7 SCC 775:

                          "Para 7: Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and to the documents on record, the question that falls for consideration before this Court would be, whether the Commission/Forum under the Act could have entertained the complaint involving highly disputed questions of facts or involving allegations of tortious acts, the proceedings before the Commission/Forum being summary in nature?

                          ''Para 9: Under the circumstances, when the Current Account No. 4160 was opened by R. Thulasiram as the proprietor of 'D-Cube Construction', relying upon the letter dated 15.02.1997 written on behalf of the 'D-Cube Constructions (P) Ltd.', and when the disputed two drafts in question which were in the name of 'D-Cube Construction', were credited in the account of 'D-Cube Construction', it could not be said that there was any willful default or imperfection or shortcoming so as to term it as the deficiency in service on the part of the appellant-bank within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the said Act." ''Para 11: So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, 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 12: 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 willful 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. "

The Respondents have also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble NCDRC in MSTC Ltd. vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. (2014) 2 CPJ (NC) 481:

                          "Para 41: There is, in my view, considerable merit in this. The petitioner itself is, through one of its principal officers (Jayesh Desai), involved in these murky and illicit transactions. This is not a simple case of goods sold and delivered, their price unpaid without just cause. This is a story, yet unravelling of tangled webs of fraud, deceit, illegality, diversion of funds and exports. The Government officials are involved. Criminal investigations continue. It is impossible to hold that the company has neglected to pay the petitioner's claim without just cause. If the company is correct in its submission, then it is very clearly the victim of a very well thought out fraud and conspiracy."

                          "In view of this discussion, we have to come to the conclusion that we cannot poach into the jurisdiction of the civil court or other appropriate forum. Thus, all the 36 cases, go in a tizzy. When the allegations made in the complaint are of fraudulent and criminal nature, the same cannot be adjudicated under the summary jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora, and such matters must be left to the competent civil or criminal courts for proper adjudication. The Consumer Commission cannot examine or determine criminal liability or the complicity of parties in a fraud, and any such attempt would amount to encroaching upon the jurisdiction of the criminal court."

The Respondents further placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble NCDRC in Chenaram vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce & Anr. (State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur) Revision Petition No. 307 of 2016 :

                          "It is an admitted case that the complainant had no account with State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur. Therefore, he was not a consumer of the said bank and there was no privity of contract between him and State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur. The complainant therefore was not entitled to approach the District Forum against State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur. On this ground alone, the State Commission was justified in setting aside the order passed by the District Forum. We therefore find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the State Commission. We however make it clear that since the complaint against State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur was not maintainable before the District Forum, dismissal of the complaint shall not come in the way of the complainant approaching a forum other than a consumer forum for redressal of his grievance against State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur. The revision petition stands disposed of. "

The Respondents also placed reliance upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rohit Girdharilal Choudhary vs. Vipul Ltd. (2021) 1 SCC 8:

                          "The proceedings before the Consumer Commission being summary in nature are unsuitable for adjudication of matters involving highly disputed questions of fact, allegations of tortious acts, or criminal conduct. The existence of parallel criminal proceedings further militates against the exercise of consumer jurisdiction, as a finding on facts by a Consumer Commission may prejudice or conflict with the outcome of a pending criminal trial."

VII. ANALYSIS, DISCUSSION AND FINDING OF THIS COMMISSION

This Commission has given its careful and anxious consideration to the entire record, the pleadings, the documentary evidence, and the erudite submissions advanced by the learned counsel on both sides.

At the threshold, it must be noted that this Commission is in respectful and wholehearted agreement with the view taken by the Hon'ble State Commission that the present complaints are, in their very essence, complaints of fraud and forgery, offences that are criminal in nature and have in fact given rise to a registered FIR and pending criminal proceedings before the competent court. The determination of all the questions raised, whether the Respondent Banks were complicit, whether they failed in their duty of verification, whether the accounts were opened through misrepresentation, and whether the transferred amounts actually entered the accounts of the Respondent Banks all necessarily require a detailed and elaborate inquiry into questions of fact and law far beyond the summary jurisdiction of this Commission.

It is also noted that upon discovering the fraud, the Appellant lodged FIR No. 07/2019 at the concerned Police Station and subsequent to that the Appellant has already recovered Rs.53,43,000/- through police action and the Magistrate's order. Criminal proceedings arising from the FIR remain pending before the competent court. It was also subsequently established by the internal cyber inquiry of Reliance Industries Limited that the website www.reliancepetroleum.org was wholly fraudulent and was being operated from outside India using a Singapore-based IP service provider and the said website was shut down on 28.12.2018.

The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, both provide quasi-judicial machinery designed to afford speedy and inexpensive redressal of genuine consumer grievances arising out of deficiency in service or unfair trade practices. These forums operate through summary proceedings and are neither designed nor equipped to adjudicate matters that require examination of complex disputed facts, appreciation of technical evidence, or determination of criminal liability. It is a settled proposition of law that wherever the gravamen of a complaint is fraud, forgery, impersonation, or criminal conspiracy, the appropriate forum is the Civil Court or the Criminal Court not the Consumer Commission.

This legal proposition has been authoritatively and unambiguously laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in The Chairman & Managing Director, City Union Bank Ltd. & Anr. vs. R. Chandramohan [supra]. The Apex Court held in paragraph 12 of that judgment now to be regarded as the lodestar of consumer adjudication in fraud matters that the proceedings before the Commission being summary in nature, complaints involving highly disputed questions of facts or cases involving tortious acts or criminality like fraud or cheating cannot be decided by the Forum/Commission under the Consumer Protection Act; and further, that 'deficiency in service' must be distinguished from criminal acts or tortious acts, with the burden of proving deficiency always upon the person alleging it. This declaration brooks no departure in the present case.

The position is further reinforced by the NCDRC's judgment in MSTC Ltd. vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. [supra], wherein the Commission categorically declined to exercise consumer jurisdiction over matters of fraud, deceit, and criminal conspiracy, holding that 'we cannot poach into the jurisdiction of the civil court or other appropriate forum'. The instant case, involving a meticulously planned cyber-fraud of considerable magnitude, is on all fours with the situations contemplated by these authorities.

The Respondent Banks, State Bank of India (F.A. No. 138) and Canara Bank (F.A. No. 139) , are not accused of having directly perpetrated the fraud. Their alleged involvement is at best indirect and incidental a putative failure to verify the beneficiary's name. Whether they breached any obligation under the RBI Guidelines dated 14.10.2010 is itself a matter of sharp factual and legal dispute, and the Banks have raised a plausible and reasoned interpretation of the said Guidelines to the contrary. The resolution of this dispute demands a forensic examination of the Banks' internal procedures, the KYC records, and the mechanics of the RTGS credit system none of which can be conducted in summary consumer proceedings. There is accordingly no deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent Banks that can be established through the present proceedings.

This Commission further notes with approval the legal principle enunciated in Chenaram vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce & Anr. ["supra"], that where the Complainant holds no account with the Respondent Bank and no privity of contract exists between them, the complaint against such Bank is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act. The Appellant's account was with Shree Rajkot District Co-operative Bank Ltd. and not with the Respondent Banks. The Respondent Banks rendered no direct service to the Appellant; they were merely the recipient institutions into which funds were remitted by fraudsters. This factual matrix does not create the consumer-service provider relationship that is the indispensable foundation of a consumer complaint under the Act.

In conclusion, this Commission holds, in full and respectful concurrence with the State Commission, that the present complaints being fundamentally rooted in allegations of fraud, forgery, criminal impersonation, and conspiracy are not maintainable before a Consumer Forum. The appropriate forum for the adjudication of the questions raised herein is the Civil Court or the Criminal Court, as may be appropriate. There is no deficiency of service established or establishable against the Respondent Banks through summary consumer proceedings.

VIII. ORDER

In light of the foregoing discussion and the settled legal position, this Commission passes the following Order:

First Appeal No. 138 of 2026 and First Appeal No. 139 of 2026 are hereby dismissed. The impugned orders dated 19.11.2025 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Gujarat in Consumer Complaint Nos. 275 of 2019 and 276 of 2019 respectively, are hereby upheld.

The Appellant shall be at liberty to approach the Court of appropriate jurisdiction - civil or criminal - for redressal of his grievances.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Office is directed to forward certified copies of this judgment to the parties and to the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat, forthwith.