1. By way of this order questions of jurisdiction of this Court and maintainability of claim are being decided.
2. On the basis of claim in hand filed under Section 25 of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005 (hereinafter to be called the Act), Miss Zakia Sultana has asserted that she is account holder of Allied Bank and maintaining her account with defendant No.1; she is an illiterate lady; defendants without her permission got signed some papers and transferred an amount of Rs. 70,00,000/- (seventy lacs); on inquiry defendant No. 1 informed that said amount was invested in profitable scheme of EFU Life Insurance Ltd; when claimant protested an amount of Rs. 45,00,000/- (forty five lacs) was credited in her account; she asked for remaining amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- (five lacs) and 20,00,000/- (twenty lacs ) she was informed that said two amounts were invested separately in same scheme; when claimant made protest, defendant No. 1 disclosed that EFU had issued two cheques of Rs. 2280315/- dated 08.12.2012 and Rs. 512113/- dated 25.09.2012 which were deposited in account of claimant; remaining amount of Rs. 27,92,428/- was misappropriated by defendant No.1; due to gross negligence and bad services of defendants claimant had suffered loss of Rs.
2792428/-; she served a legal notice to defendants which was not responded. In prayer claimant had asked for recovery of Rs. 47,92,428/-.
3. On appearance defendants submitted joint written statement where objections of jurisdiction of this Court as well as maintainability of claim were raised. On facts it was asserted that whatever was done that was with express permission and direction of claimant.
4. Arguments of learned counsel for defendants were heard on 14.03.2013 and of learned counsel for claimant have been heard today.
5. Admittedly, claimant is an account holder with defendant No.1. With her claim she did not attach relevant documents of bank transactions which were brought on record by defendants with written statement. These documents indicate that claimant through Allied Bank had applied for investment in EFU. She under her signature had directed defendant No.1 to credit an amount of Rs.
70,00,000/- annually with EFU Life Insurance Ltd. in its account. Vide a transaction dated 28.05.2010 Rs. 70,00,000/- were transferred to EFU. It appears that EFU did not accept such huge premium so another document having signature of claimant shows that she asked for reduction of premium to Rs. 25,00,000/-. Thereafter another application was moved by claimant to EFU asking for policy surrender and this too was signed by her. After deducting certain portion of amount EFU sent two cheques to defendants of Rs. 512113/- dated 25.09.2012 and 2280315/- of 08.10.2012. These two cheques were deposited by claimant in her account with defendant No.1 as evident from balance sheet provided by bank.
6. There are two aspects which are required to be seen. Firstly, whether it is the case of defective services and secondly whether it is the case between claimant and EFU which is a Life Insurance Company?
7. Coming to first eventually for the sake of arguments it is believed that only signatures of claimant on some documents were obtained by defendant No.1. It means that there was a fraud played with lady. Learned counsel for claimant also alleges it as a fraud. If it is so then there is no question of defective and faulty services. There must be a difference and demarcation between fraud and defective services. In this case before services had to be operated, alleged fraud was committed by defendants hence no question of defective or faulty services arises. At the most it was an offence committed in connection with business of a bank and such eventuality is covered by Offenses in Respect of Bank (Special Court) Ordinance, 1984.
8. If it is presumed that it was not a fraud then prima-facie it is a matter between claimant and EFU Insurance Company who is not a party to this litigation. Even if it is a party even then this Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon this dispute between them and for this view I am guided from a reported judgment of Honourable Lahore High Court title Regional Manager Adamgee Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer District Consumer Court, Lahore 2012-CLD-846.
9. In view of above objection raised by defendants about jurisdiction of this Court is upheld. Claim is, therefore, returned to claimant with the observations that she may approach forum concerned if so advised. File shall be consigned to record room after its due completion. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.