Tripura

StateCommission

A/35/2019

Narayan Sarkar - Complainant(s)

Versus

General Manager, Tripura S. C. Co-Operative Development Corp. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. M.K. Arya, Smt. P. Chakraborty, Mr. D. Saha

13 Jan 2020

ORDER

Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala.

 

 

Case No.A.35.2019

 

 

 

1. Sri Narayan Sarkar,

S/o Late Dhirendra Sarkar of Halaimura,

P.S. Kumarghat, Unakoti Tripura,

Pin - 799264.

 

2. Sri Prasenjit Pal,

S/o Late Pranesh Chandra Pal,

Kalibari Tilla, Fatikroy,

Unakoti Tripura.

… … … … Appellants/Complainants.

Vs

 

1. The General Manager,

Tripura Scheduled Caste Co-operative Development Corporation Ltd.,

Lake Chowmuhani, Krishnanagar,

Agartala, West Tripura,

Pin: 799001.

2. The Supervisor,

Tripura Scheduled Caste Co-operative Development Corporation Ltd.,

Kumarghat R.D Block, Kumarghat,

Unakoti Tripura, Pin: 799264.

                                                          … … … … Respondents/Opposite Parties.

 

 

Present

Hon’ble Mr. Justice U.B. Saha

President,

State Commission

 

Mr. Kamalendu Bikash Das,

Member,

State Commission

 

 

 

 

For the Appellants:                                              Mr. Mridul Kanti Arya, Adv.

For the Respondents:                                          Mr. Prasanta Kr. Pal, Adv.

Date of Hearing & Delivery of Judgment: 13.01.2020.

 

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

 

U.B. Saha, J,

The instant appeal is filed against the judgment dated 19.09.2019 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as District Forum), North Tripura (Unakoti), Kailashahar in Case No.C.C.09 of 2019 whereby and whereunder the learned District Forum dismissed the complaint petition filed by the complainants, the appellants herein.

2. Heard Mr. Mridul Kanti Arya, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants (hereinafter referred to as complainants) as well as Mr. Prasanta Kr. Pal, Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondents (hereinafter referred to as opposite parties/Corporation).
3. Facts needed to be discussed are as follows:-

The case of the complainant, as manifested from the complaint petition, is that, for development of his restaurant shop, the complainant approached the opposite party no.2 for providing him loan of Rs.1,80,000/- under LB scheme. Complainant no.2 stood as guarantor against the said loan. Complainant no.2 is a teacher by profession and he consented to the effect that in case of failure of payment of installment by the complainant no.1, the opposite parties will have the right to deduct the amount from his salary account by giving prior information to him. On 29.10.2018 and 30.10.2018, the complainant no.1 paid in total an amount of Rs.18,680/- against his Loan Account No.2696 and permanently closed his loan account and verbally prayed for clearance certificate, but the office of the opposite party no.1 told the complainant no.1 that they would provide clearance certificate through opposite party no.2 within a short time. After 15 days, the complainant no.1 contacted with the opposite party no.2 for clearance certificate, but the opposite party no.2 informed the complainant no.1 that, clearance certificate could not be given, but advised him to wait for 10 days more as opposite party no.2 would collect the same from the Head Office at Agartala. On 01.11.2018, complainant no.2 noticed that opposite party no.1 without sending him any notice deducted an amount of Rs.4,000/- from his salary account. Complainant no.2 had the knowledge that complainant no.1 had already liquidated the loan amount and as such, deduction of Rs.4,000/- from his account was beyond rule. However, complainant no.1 contacted with the opposite party no.2 to clarify the matter, but the opposite party no.2 expressed his inability to help on that issue. Thereafter, the complainant no.1 finding no other alternative went to Agartala and contacted opposite party no.1 who assured him that they would provide clearance certificate and return back the deducted amount to the complainant no.2 within a short time, but practically the same was not given. It is further contended in the complainant petition that on 01.12.2018, the complainant no.2 noticed that the opposite party no.1 again deducted an amount of Rs.4,000/- from his salary account without any information. Thereafter, the complainant no.1 contacted with the opposite party no.2 to clarify the matter once again, but the opposite party no.2 that time too expressed his inability to help in that matter and then the complainant no.1 again contacted with the opposite party no.1, who assured him that they would provide clearance certificate and return back the deducted amount to the salary account of the complainant no.2 within a short time. Only on 07.12.2018, the opposite party no.1 issued clearance certificate in favour of the complainant no.1, but the deducted amount was not credited to the account of complainant no.2 and thus both the opposite parties have rendered deficiency of service to the complainants, particularly to the complainant no.2 and as such, the complainants prayed for compensation of an amount of Rs.98,000/- with interest from the opposite parties for deficiency of service, mental harassment, pain and agony, legal expenses and travel fare.

4. On receipt of the notice, opposite parties appeared and resisted the complaint by filing written statement stating, inter alia, that the complaint is not maintainable in its present form and nature inasmuch as no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in any manner. That the complaint petition hits the ingredients as laid down under Sub-section © of Section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act as the opposite party-Corporation has neither made any unfair trade practice nor a restrictive trade practice. That the complainant no.1 is not a consumer as defined under Sub-section (d) (ii) of the Act inasmuch as the beneficiary complainant no.1 being a member of schedule caste community made prayer to the opposite party-Corporation in July, 2012 for providing financial assistance for Laghu business and the Corporation sanctioned Rs.1,80,000/- out of the total project cost of Rs.2,00,000/- for commercial purpose. Providing of financial assistance to the beneficiary and realization of loan from beneficiary to mandating to give assess refund as alleged is neither a contract for service nor contract of service or having any cutoff date to cease the contract and therefore, the very essence of filing complaint under Section 12 of the Act hits maintainability of the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act and hence, it is liable to be dismissed in limine. That, no cause of action has arisen in filing the complaint as the Corporation has already realized the debts and liabilities from the complainants as per terms and condition of the sanction letter as well as loan agreement though it was obtained for commercial purpose under Laghu Byavasay scheme to run for getting economic footings of his family and not for private use and as such, the instant complaint petition is not maintainable. That the complainant no.2 is a guarantor stood for the borrower complainant with a view to secure the loan sanctioned and disbursed public money. In course of continuous process of recovery through salary account of guarantor operating with TGB, Fatikroy Branch it was made excess deductions in November, 2018 and December, 2018 at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month and after updating the ledger entry and calculation sheets arriving at final adjustment of subsidy, principal, interest against the loan account, the Corporation could ascertain that an amount of Rs.8000/- was credited in excess to the loan account of the beneficiary and accordingly by a letter No. F.10 (23)-Corpn/SC/PART-II/12/01 dated 03.06.2019 the excess recovered amount of Rs.8000/- was refunded by a letter dated 03.06.2019 along with a statement in the account of the guarantor complainant no.2 vide Account No.8078011807453 maintained in the TGB, Fatikroy Branch and therefore it was by the bona fide reasons, some time has been taken to refund the excess recovered amount back and as such, the corporation has no laches or negligence for taking sometimes to refund the money and as such the petition is not tenable in law. There has also been no laches or negligence on the part of the opposite party-Corporation to issue the clearance certificate as well as refund of excess amount of Rs.8000/- to the source from which it was recovered and it was by bona fide and obvious reason, some time was consumed, but the opposite party-Corporation never denied or remained reluctant to refund the excess amount or issuing clearance certificate and hence the complaint is not maintainable or tenable in any way and it is liable to be dismissed with cost.
5. The learned District Forum discussed the evidence on record and while considering the submissions of the parties took note of Section 2 (d) (i) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and held that the complainants are not the consumers, thus the complaint petition is not maintainable and consequent thereto, dismissed the complaint petition.
6. Mr. Arya, Ld. Counsel while urging for setting aside the impugned judgment has relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission in Karnataka SC/ST Development Ltd. and Another Versus Channabasappa and Another reported in (2006) 1 CPJ 176 and contended that the complainants are consumer. Thus, the findings of the learned District Forum are not correct. He has also taken us to the observation of the learned District Forum wherein the learned District Forum observed that “there are some laches on the part of the opposite parties in timely issuance of certificate to the complainant and the manner by which excess amount was deducted from the account of the complainant no.2 also indicates that the opposite parties are somewhat indifferent, which is not at all expected from a welfare organization, namely, Tripura Schedule Caste Cooperative Development Corporation Limited. Therefore, it is viewed by this Forum that the opposite parties must resort to due care and be careful so that such lapses/laches may not recur in case of any other person like that of the complainants.”
7.  Mr. Pal, Ld. Counsel while supporting the impugned judgment would contend that complainants are not consumer as per the provisions of Section 2 (d) (i) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Thus, there was no wrong in the impugned judgment.
8. We have also gone through the impugned judgment as well as the evidence on record. According to us, the complainants are very much covered by the definition clause of the Consumer Protection Act and not only that, the case of the complainants is also supported by the judgment of oHHon’ble National Commission in Channabasappa and Another (supra). The judgment of the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in The MD, Kerala State Development Corporation for SC & ST, Town Hall Road, Thrissur Kerala Vs Janaki Elayedath Ayyappan, Koovakkattunnu, Meloor Kerala and others (First Appeal No.A/10/511) also supports the case of the complainants. More so, when the learned District Forum in the impugned judgment observed that there was some laches on the part of the opposite parties in timely issuance of certificate to the complainant and the manner by which excess amount was deducted from the account of the complainant no.2 also indicates that opposite parties are somewhat indifferent, which is not at all expected from a Welfare Organization, namely, Tripura Schedule Caste Cooperative Development Corporation Limited, therefore, it can be easily presumed that the finding of the learned District Forum is a contradictory one. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that when there was some laches on the part of the Corporation for refunding the excess amount, it would be proper to award some costs as interest for the deficiency in service by the opposite parties-Corporation. Therefore, an amount of Rs.2,000/- is awarded as compensation, which shall be paid by the respondent-opposite parties, Corporation within a period of two months to the complainant no.2, failing which, the opposite parties, Corporation shall pay interest on the aforesaid amount of Rs.2,000/- @9% per annum till the date of payment.

With the above observation and direction, the appeal is disposed of.

Send down the records to the learned District Forum, North Tripura (Unakoti), Kailashahar.

 

 

 

MEMBER State Commission Tripura

PRESIDENT State Commission Tripura