Tripura

StateCommission

A/30/2018

Sri. Arindam Bhattacharjee - Complainant(s)

Versus

General Manager, Tripura Gramin Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Manisha Chakraborty

15 Dec 2018

ORDER

Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala.

 

PRESENT

 

Hon’ble Mr. Justice U.B. Saha

President,

State Commission

 

 

Mr. Narayan Ch. Sharma,

Member,

State Commission

 

Dr. Chhanda Bhattacharyya,

Member,

State Commission

 

 

APPEAL CASE No.A/19/2018

 

 

1. The General Manager,

Tripura Gramin Bank,

Head Office: Abhoynagar, Agartala, West Tripura.

                                                         

2. The Branch Manager,

Tripura Gramin Bank,

Joynagar Branch, Agartala, West Tripura.

…. ….….….Appellant/Opposite Parties.

                                                         

Vs

 

 

 

 

1. Sri Arindam Bhattacharjee,

S/o Late Ajit Kumar Bhattacharjee,

Ramnagar Road No.8, Agartala,

P.O. Ramnagar, P.S. West Agartala,

Pin: 799002.

                    ….    ….    ….    ….   Respondent/Complainant.

 

 

 

For the Appellants:                                              Mr. Tapan Kumar Modak, Adv.

For the Respondent:                                           Miss Manisha Chakraborti, Adv.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPEAL CASE No.A/30/2018

 

 

 

1. Sri Arindam Bhattacharjee,

S/o Late Ajit Kumar Bhattacharjee,

Ramnagar Road No.8, Agartala,

P.O. Ramnagar, P.S. West Agartala,

Pin: 799002.

1.  

 

Vs

 

1. The General Manager,

Tripura Gramin Bank,

Head Office: Abhoynagar, Agartala, West Tripura.

                                                         

2. The Branch Manager,

Tripura Gramin Bank,

Joynagar Branch, Agartala, West Tripura.

                                                ….    ….    ….    ….   Respondent/Opposite Parties.

 

 

 

For the Appellant:                                               Miss Manisha Chakraborti, Adv.

For the Respondents:                                          Mr. Tapan Kumar Modak, Adv.

Date of Hearing & Delivery of Judgment:          15.12.2018.

 

 

 

J U D G M E N T [O R A L]

 

 

U.B. Saha,J,

These appeals have been filed by the appellants, the General Manager, Tripura Gramin Bank, Head Office at Abhoynagar, Agartala, West Tripura and the Branch Manager, Tripura Gramin Bank, Joynagar Branch, Agartala, West Tripura in Appeal Case No. A/19/2018 (hereinafter referred to as opposite parties/Gramin Bank) and the appellant, Sri Arindam Bhattacharjee in Appeal Case No. A/30/2018 (hereinafter referred to as complainant/petitioner) under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the judgment dated 11.04.2018 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as District Forum), West Tripura, Agartala in Case No. C.C. 128 of 2017 whereby and whereunder the learned District Forum allowed the complaint petition directing the opposite parties-Gramin Bank to calculate the interest on the loan amount and also on fixed deposit account properly and after satisfaction of the loan amount, the rest amount, if any, is to be refunded to the petitioner along with Rs.10,000/- as compensation for deficiency of service and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation, in total Rs.15,000/-. Payment should be made within two months, if not, it will carry interest @ 9% per annum.

2. The Appeal Case No. A/19/2018 filed by the opposite parties, General Manager, Tripura Gramin Bank and another is within time whereas, the Appeal Case No. A/30/2018 is filed by Sri Arindam Bhattacharjee, complainant-petitioner along with an application for condoning the delay of 53 days in preferring the appeal. 
3. Heard Mr. Tapan Kumar Modak, Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellants in Appeal Case No.A/19/2018 (the respondents in Appeal Case No.A/30/2018) as well as Miss Manisha Chakraborti, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in Appeal Case No. A/30/2018 (the respondent in Appeal Case No.A/19/2018).
4. As the impugned judgment is challenged by the opposite parties as well as the complainant, we are of the view that for the interest of justice, the delay of 57 days in preferring appeal by the complainant should be condoned and accordingly the same is condoned and the appeal is taken up for hearing along with Appeal Case No. A/19/2018 preferred by the opposite parties.
5. As the facts in both the appeals are similar and the same judgment is under challenge and the questions of law involved are also same, both the appeals are taken up together for disposal by this common judgment.
6. Brief facts of the case are as follows:-

Complainant, Sri Arindam Bhattacharjee took a loan amounting to Rs.7,65,000/- from the opposite parties-Tripura Gramin Bank which was to be paid within one year. Four numbers of Fixed Deposit Certificates amounting to Rs.2 lacs each and one for amount of Rs.50,000/- were kept in the same Bank on condition that the accrued interest will be deposited against the loan account, but the complainant-petitioner failed to pay the loan amount within the stipulated time. Thus, the opposite parties-Gramin Bank liquidated the Fixed Deposit before maturity of the same without giving any notice to the petitioner and the matured value was also not paid to him. As the complainant suffered due to such deficiency of service by the opposite parties-Gramin Bank, he claimed an amount of Rs.17,90,000/- as compensation.

7. Opposite parties-Gramin Bank appeared and filed their written statement denying the claim of the complainant-petitioner. It is stated in the written statement that loan was taken against the security of five Fixed Deposit Certificates amounting to Rs.8,50,000/- purchased by the petitioner. The condition was to pay the amount with 11% interest as per terms and conditions, but the complainant did not pay the loan in time. So, outstanding balance was enhanced to Rs.8,91,512/-. Accordingly, the amount was deducted by the Bank Authority liquidating the certificate as per terms and conditions. There was no deficiency of service by the opposite parties.
8. On the basis of the pleadings as well as the evidence adduced by the parties, the learned District Forum framed the following points for deciding the case:-

1. Whether the O.P. liquidated the MIS Fixed Deposit Certificates violating the terms and condition and caused loss to the petitioner?
2. Whether there was deficiency of service by the O.P. and petitioner is entitled to get compensation?

9. Complainant-petitioner produced the copy of letter, photocopy of Fixed Deposit Certificates (five nos.), Customer Account Ledger and photocopy of Advocate's Notice. He also examined himself as one of the witness.
10. On the other hand, the opposite parties-Gramin Bank, produced the statement of loan account, loan documents including the copy of the application for loan, overdraft against the Term Deposit and also the photocopy of undertaking/Set Off given by the complainant-petitioner, photocopy of communication letter. The opposite parties-Gramin Bank also produced the statement on affidavit of one Manash Kumar Roy, Branch Manager of Tripura Gramin Bank who was cross-examined.
11. On the basis of the oral evidence as well as the documentary evidence produced by the parties, the learned District Forum passed the impugned judgment.
12. Mr. Modak, Ld. Counsel while urging for setting aside the impugned judgment submits that though the complainant-petitioner was supposed to pay the loan amount within one year, but the learned District Forum in its judgment mentioned two years instead of one year which is contrary to the terms of loan agreement. Rate of interest is 11%. Complainant-petitioner is to return the loan amount with interest on demand by the opposite parties-Gramin Bank, but the complainant-petitioner failed to deposit the loan amount within the tenure fixed for repayment. He again submits that the loan was taken on 27.11.2014 whereas the learned District Forum in its findings mentioned that the petitioner started payment of the loan since 07.10.2013, meaning thereby, the learned District Forum even did not consider the loan agreement. Last payment was made on 27.06.2017 i.e. of Rs.6,000/-. As the complainant-petitioner failed to deposit the loan amount in time, the opposite parties-Gramin Bank on 10.08.2017 liquidated all the five Fixed Deposit Certificates. Thus, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties-Gramin Bank.
13. Miss Chakraborty, Ld. Counsel while supporting the impugned judgment also claimed for more compensation for which the complainant-petitioner filed the Appeal Case No.A/30/2018. She has further contended that the Bank Authority before maturity of the Fixed Deposit Certificates liquidated the same without issue of any notice to the complainant-petitioner. She again submits that though the interest of Fixed Deposit Certificate was 9%, but the Bank Authority calculated 11% interest on the loan amount.  
14. We have gone through the evidence on record as well as the impugned judgment. It appears from the record that admittedly, the complainant-petitioner took loan against the Term Deposit amounting to Rs.7,65,000/- against security of five Fixed Deposit Certificates purchased by him. Value of which is Rs.8,50,000/- with a condition that he would refund the entire loan amount along with 11% interest within one year from the date of sanctioning of the said loan i.e. from 27.11.2014 and since the said five Fixed Deposit Certificates were under Monthly Income Scheme (MIS) for 33 months, the interest of said securities was crediting into the savings account of the complainant-petitioner till 26.07.2017. Complainant-petitioner supposed to repay the entire loan amount within 27.11.2015 i.e. within one year from the date of sanction of the loan, but he failed to do so. As the complainant-petitioner did not pay the loan amount in time, the outstanding loan was increased to the tune of Rs.8,91,512/- including interest on 27.07.2017 meaning thereby, the outstanding loan amount exceeded the total value of the Fixed Deposit Certificates i.e. Rs.8,50,000/-, which were kept as security at the time of loan. It also appears from the record that the Bank Authority time to time issued notice to the complainant-petitioner informing him the liquidation of the loan amount of Rs.8,98,414/-. The learned District Forum in its findings particularly in Paragraph-15 of the impugned judgment made an observation that “the statement of account of both the D.W.1 and Bank Official and found that bank hurriedly liquidated the fixed deposit certificates without proper calculation.” We are of the view that such an observation and findings of the learned District Forum is without any basis. We are unable to accept the contention of Miss Chakraborti, Ld. Counsel that the complainant-petitioner signed the letter of undertaking on a blank form. Such a contention cannot be believed on the ground that the complainant-petitioner himself is an agent of Insurance Company and who is very much aware regarding the procedure of Bank functioning. If the proper calculation is not done, then the learned District Forum can direct the Bank Authority to provide the proper calculation sheet to the complainant-petitioner for his satisfaction, but the fact remains that in the instant case, the opposite parties-Gramin Bank has already provided the calculation sheet relating to the loan account which was also submitted before the learned District Forum and copy of which was also served to the complainant-petitioner. Thus it cannot be said that the complainant-petitioner is not aware regarding the status of the loan account. Therefore, the learned District Forum should not come to a conclusion that there was deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties-Gramin Bank for which it directed the Bank Authority to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation. More so, the Court is not in a position to rewrite the terms and conditions of an agreement. We are of the opinion that whatever the opposite parties-Gramin Bank has done for collecting the loan amount is nothing but as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. Therefore, there was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties-Bank.

In view of the above, we are also of the view that the learned District Forum committed error while passing the impugned judgment. Thus, the same is interfered with and accordingly, the impugned judgment is set aside.

In the result, the Appeal No.A/19/2018 preferred by the opposite parties-Tripura Gramin Bank is allowed and in consequent thereto, the Appeal No.A/30/2018 preferred by the complainant-petitioner is hereby dismissed being devoid of merit. No order as to costs.

Send down the records to the Ld. District Forum, West Tripura, Agartala.

 

 

 

MEMBER State Commission Tripura MEMBER State Commission Tripura PRESIDENT State Commission Tripura