Tripura

StateCommission

A/40/2017

United Bank of India - Complainant(s)

Versus

Smt. Amrita Sarkar Ghosh - Opp.Party(s)

A Roy Barman, Leena Sarkar

22 Dec 2017

ORDER

Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala.

 

Case No.A.40.2017

 

 

1. United Bank of India,

Represented by the Branch Manager,

G.B. Hospital Branch,
P.O. Kujaban, P.S. New Capital Complex,
Agartala, West Tripura.

 

… … … … Appellant/Opposite Party.

 

VS.

 

1. Smt. Amrita Sarkar (Ghosh),
   W/o Sri Pinaki Ghosh,

Ramkrishna Palli, ITI Road,
P.O. Kujaban, P.S. New Capital Complex,
Agartala, District - West Tripura. 

 

2. Sri Samir Ghosh,
   S/o Late Gour Netai Ghosh,

Ramkrishna Palli, ITI Road,
P.O. Kujaban, P.S. New Capital Complex,
Agartala, District - West Tripura. 

… … … … Respondent/Complainants.

 

Present

Mr. Justice U.B. Saha,

President,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

Mrs. Sobhana Datta,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

Mr. Narayan Sharma,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

 

For the Appellant:                                         Miss Leena Sarkar, Adv. 

For the Respondents:                                    Mr. Bimal Kanti Nath, Adv.

Date of Hearing & Delivery of Judgment:    22.12.2017.

 

 

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

 

U.B. Saha, J,

The instant appeal filed by the appellant, United Bank of India, represented by its Branch Manager, G.B. Hospital Branch (hereinafter referred to as opposite party/Bank) is directed against the judgment dated 02.03.2017 passed by the learned District Consumers Disputes Redressal Forum, West Tripura, Agartala (hereinafter referred to as District Forum), in Case No. C.C. 90 of 2016 whereby and whereunder the Ld. District Forum directed the appellant-opposite party Bank to take proper step for realization of the amount of Rs.1,75,000/- if deposited at all two times,  but the operation of the account should not be stopped. It should be revived at once and the cheque should be honoured if the amount is available. It is also directed that for deficiency of service, Bank Authority is to pay Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner as compensation and also to pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation, in total Rs.60,000/-. The payment is to be made within two months, if not paid; it will carry interest @ 9% per annum.

2. Heard Miss Leena Sarkar, Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant-opposite party as well as Mr. Bimal Kanti Nath, Ld. Advocate appearing for the respondents (hereinafter referred to as complainants).
3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:-

The respondent-complainants filed one application under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the learned District Forum alleging that as per recommendation of Industry Department, Government of Tripura, Rs.7 lacs was sanctioned as loan to the complainant Amrita Sarkar (Ghosh) under PMEGP Scheme. Out of this loan amount, Rs.1,75,000/- was subsidy. Complainants are jointly operating the Savings Bank Account No.1507010118088 with another SB Account opened in the name of complainant Amrita Sarkar (Ghosh) for transaction. Rs.4 lac was kept on Fixed Deposit in the Bank. Amrita Sarkar (Ghosh) started repayment of the loan, but on 20.07.2015, the Cash Credit Account being CCA No.1507250000143 of Amrita Sarkar (Ghosh) was closed without any notice. Another complainant Samir Ghosh issued one cheque No.334073 for Rs.80,000/- in favour of Sanjay Chanda against their SB Account. The aforesaid cheque was deposited by the cheque holder Sri Sanjay Chanda in the Bank of Baroda, but the cheque was bounced for insufficient fund. Actual reason for bouncing the cheque was not informed by the Bank. The freezing of account by the Bank was informed, but it was without any notice. It caused harassment to the complainants. The complainants, therefore, claimed in total Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation in their complaint petition.

4. The O.P. Bank appeared and filed one written objection on 07.01.2017 denying the claim of the complainants. In the said written objection, the  opposite parties relied upon the following documents, namely,

1. Computer generated Account Statement of Smt. Amrita Sarkar (Ghosh), A/C No.1507010118088.
2. Computer generated Account Statement of Smt. Amrita Sarkar (Ghosh), A/C No.1507300003490.
3. Computer generated Account Statement of Deep Hotel & Fast Food (CC. Account) A/C No.1507250000143.
4. Computer generated Subsidy Account Statement of Smt. Amrita Sarkar (Ghosh), A/C No.1507300004114.

An affidavit-in-chief has also been submitted by one Shri Sushil Chandra Deb, the Branch Manager of UBI, G.B. Hospital Branch, the opposite party no.2 stating, inter alia, that on 20.07.2012, subsidy amount of Rs.1,75,000/- was credited to the Account No.1507010118088 of the complainant, Amrita Sarkar (Ghosh) (joint account) and that amount was transferred to her loan A/C No.1507300003490 on 20.07.2012. Subsequently on 20.07.2015, subsidy amount of Rs.1,75,000/- with interest amounting to Rs.1,76,891.36 was wrongly credited to the Account No.1507010118088 (joint account). So second time entry of the subsidy amount on 27.07.2015 was an unintentional mistake committed by the Bank and subsequently, when the said fact was detected, the Bank informed Amrita Sarkar (Ghosh), that due to mistake, the subsidy amount was credited twice in her joint account. It is also stated that on 20.07.2015, the Cash Credit Account of the complainant was closed and clearance certificate was also issued on behalf of the Bank and the mistake committed by the Bank detected thereafter. It is the further case of the Bank that the entire fact was within the knowledge of the complainant and the complainant has no right and title over the second time wrongly posted subsidy amount and being the said amount is the public money, but with full knowledge the complainant has lodged the complaint case against the Bank for unlawful gain and such claim of the complainant cannot be adjudicated as per provisions of Consumer Protection Act.

5. On the basis of the contention raised by the parties, the following points were framed for deciding the case:-

1. Whether the bank account of the petitioner was closed and freezed without giving notice and without assigning reason?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to get compensation for the deficiency of service by the bank manager?

6. Complainants produced the letter from General Manager, Bank Pass Book, No Objection Certificate/Clearance Certificate, Cheque, Legal Notice etc. Complainants also produced the statement on affidavit of one witness.
7. Opposite parties, on the other hand, produced the statement on affidavit-in-chief of one witness, Sushil Chandra Deb, but he did not appear to face cross examination. No other documentary evidence produced by the opposite parties.
8. On the basis of the evidence produced by the parties, the District Forum passed the impugned judgment.
9. Miss Sarkar, Ld. Advocate while urging for setting aside the impugned judgment would contend that though the opposite party Bank submitted their written objection on 07.01.2017 before the learned District Forum in terms of the order dated 22.12.2016, the learned District Forum in the impugned judgment specifically stated that the opposite party Bank did not file any written statement denying the claim which is wholly contradictory to the fact. She has also taken us to the order dated 22.12.2016 wherein the learned District Forum allowed 15 days time to the opposite party Bank for filing written objection as last chance.
10. On the other hand, Mr. Nath, Ld. Advocate supports the impugned judgment of the learned District Forum. He has also stated that the Bank Authority freezed the account of the complainant without any notice and such freezing caused harassment to the complainant for which the complainant claimed for an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation.
11. We have considered the submission of the Ld. Advocate appearing for the parties and also gone through the impugned judgment as well as the orders of the learned District Forum. Admittedly, on 22.12.2016 the learned District Forum allowed 15 days time to the Bank Authority for filing their written statement and the case was fixed on 09.01.2017 for written statement. We have found in the record of the learned District Forum in Case No.C.C.90 of 2016 that on 07.01.2017 written objection was submitted by the opposite party Bank along with the account statement of four accounts as stated (supra). It appears from the statement of accounts submitted by the opposite parties Bank that on 20.07.2012, an amount of Rs.1,75,000/- was credited to the account of the complainant and on 20.07.2015, Rs.1,76,891.36 was credited as subsidy. On 22.12.2016, admittedly, the learned District Forum allowed 15 days time to the Bank Authority for filing their written statement and the matter was fixed on 09.01.2017.  
12. On 09.01.2017,  the learned District Forum passed the order as follows:-

“09.01.17- Learned advocate for Complainant is present. No step taken by O.P. United Bank. No W.S. file. No prayer. Therefore Petitioner is to give exparte evidence. To 30-01-2017 for evidence by O.P.”

13. For better appreciation, Para-2 of the impugned judgment  is also reproduced hereunder:-

“O.P. bank Manager, United Bank of India G.B Hospital Branch appeared but filed no Written Statement denying the claim. It is stated in the statement on affidavit filed later that subsidy amount Rs.1,75,000/- was credited in the account of Amrita Sarkar on 20.07.12. subsequently on 20.07.15 subsidy account of Rs.1,75,000/- wrongly credited against the SB account of Amrita Sarkar. 2^nd time entry of the subsidy was unintentional and was by mistake. Subsidy amount thus credited twice and the amount could not be recovered from the complainant. There is no deficiency of service by the O.P. at all.” 

From the record of the learned District Forum, it appears that the opposite party-Bank filed their written objection on 07.01.2017 i.e. within time as granted by the learned District Forum, therefore, according to us, the order dated 09.01.2017 and the Paragraph-2 of the impugned judgment wherein the learned District Forum mentioned that the “O.P. Bank Manager, United Bank of India, G.B Hospital Branch appeared but filed no Written Statement denying the claim.” is wholly contrary to the facts and the documents available in the record of the learned District Forum. More so, the learned District Forum on 15.02.2017 in its order mentioned that “Learned advocate for Petitioner and O.P. present. To 22-02-2017 for Cross of both the witness” and on 22.02.2017, an order was passed by the learned District Forum stating, inter alia, that “Learned advocate for Petitioner and O.P. are present. Petitioner is cross examined. Evidence closed and heard argument. To 02-03-2017 for judgment.”

From the aforesaid orders of the learned District Forum, it appears that the learned District Forum did not provide any opportunity to the opposite parties to examine their witness though the opposite parties filed their written statement and affidavit-in-chief of the Branch Manager, United Bank of India, G.B. Hospital Branch, extra copy of which is also available in the record of the learned District Forum.  

14. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment was passed without providing any opportunity to the opposite parties Bank and the mention that no written statement was filed by the opposite parties is nothing but non-application of mind. However, we are not expressing any opinion on  the merit of the case, as we are remanding  the matter before the learned District Forum to consider the written objection filed by the opposite parties Bank and also to provide an opportunity to the Bank Authority to adduce their evidence in view of the affidavit filed by the Branch Manager, United Bank of India, G.B. Hospital Branch and the accounts statement filed by them and the petitioner may also be given opportunity to cross-examine the witness of the Bank Authority, if any produced.   

Accordingly, the impugned judgment is set aside and the case is remanded back to the learned District Forum for deciding the matter afresh keeping in view the above observation of this Commission. No order as to costs.      

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