Tripura

StateCommission

A/45/2017

Tripura Gramin Bank, Represented by The General Manager - Complainant(s)

Versus

Smt. Dulali Das - Opp.Party(s)

Sri. A.Roy Barman, Ms. Leena Sarkar

14 Nov 2017

ORDER

Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala.

 

Case No.A.45.2017

 

 

1. Tripura Gramin Bank,

Represented by 

The General Manager,

Head Office - Abhoynagar,

 

 

2. The Branch Manager,

Tripura Gramin Bank,

Badharghat Branch,

Badharghat, Tripura.

… … … … … Appellant/Opposite parties.

 

                Vs

 

1. Smt. Dulali Das,

W/o Late Bijoy Kumar Das,

Matri Palli, Badharghat,

Agartala, West Tripura.

… … … … … Respondent/Complainant.

 

 

Present

Mr. Justice U.B. Saha,

President,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

Mrs. SobhanaDatta,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

Mr. Narayan Ch. Sharma,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For the Appellants:                                         Miss Leena Sarkar, Adv.

For the Respondent/Complainant:               Ms. Paramita Dhar, Adv.

Date of Hearing & Delivery of Judgment:     14.11.2017.

 

 

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

 

 

U.B. Saha, J,

The instant appeal is filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the appellants, Tripura Gramin Bank, represented by its General Manager, Abhoynagar Head Office and the Branch Manager, Tripura Gramin Bank, Badharghat Branch, Agartala (hereinafter referred to as Bank/opposite parties) against the judgment dated 18.07.2017 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, West Tripura, Agartala (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Case No.C.C. 39 of 2017 (Smt. Dulali Das Vs Tripura Gramin Bank and another) whereby and whereunder the learned District Forum allowed the complaint petition directing the opposite parties, the appellants herein, to arrange the encashment of two certificates and pay the maturity value with accrued interest and also Rs.15,000/- for deficiency of service and cost of litigation. Order is to be complied with and payment is to be made within one month, if not complied, it will carry interest @ 9% per annum.

2. Heard Miss Leena Sarkar, Ld. Counsel appearing for the opposite parties-Bank as well as Ms. Paramita Dhar, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent (hereinafter referred to as complainant/petitioner). 
3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:-

Complainant, Smt. Dulali Das aged about 60 years has a Savings Account at Tripura Gramin Bank, Badharghat Branch vide S.B. A/C No.8017012066305 and Fixed Deposit Accounts in the same bank and the accounts had been operative from 26.02.2010. On 23.07.2012, the complainant through her son Sri Ram Gopal Das had deposited Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only) in cash in the Tripura Gramin Bank, Badharghat Branch as reinvestment deposit and a reinvestment certificate vide No.440593 dated 23.07.2012 of the same amount i.e. Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only) was issued to the complainant in her name by the opposite party no.2, Branch Manager, Tripura Gramin Bank, Badharghat Branch. On the same day, the complainant made another separate transfer for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only) from her Savings Bank Account in the same Bank as another reinvestment deposit and another reinvestment certificate vide No.444916 dated 23.07.2012 of the same amount i.e. Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only) was issued by the opposite party no.2 in favour of the complainant. After expiry of twelve months, both the certificates were repayable at the rate of interest 9.25%.Time to time, the amount of certificates were reinvested by the officials of the opposite party no.2 i.e. Branch Manager, Tripura Gramin Bank, Badharghat Branch. In the month of April, 2016, the complainant was in need of cash for the marriage of her son and accordingly, she wanted to encash both the cash certificates, but the opposite party no.2, Manager of the Bank deferred the encashment. Thereafter, it was told that there was no record in regard to cash deposit of Rs.1 lac. So, cash deposit slip for Rs.1 lac was fake. On that ground, opposite party no.2, Bank Manager did not encash the amount of Rs.1 lac. Opposite parties claimed that manually prepared certificate was not recorded and it was fraudulent. Complainant-petitioner claimed that it was genuine one and wanted to get the interest. Proper service was not given by the opposite parties-Bank and in consequent thereto she, the respondent herein, preferred an application under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the learned District Forum claiming compensation amounting to Rs.2 lacs.

4. Opposite parties-Bank appeared and filed written statement denying the claim. The opposite parties-Bank contended in their written statement that the Bank without verifying the record handed over the computer generated reinvestment certificate to the complainant. Complainant illegally claimed the amount of both the certificates. There was no record of cash deposit of Rs.1 lac. So the complainant-petitioner is not entitled to get any amount on the fake certificate.
5. On the basis of contention raised by both the parties in their respective pleadings as well as the evidence adduced by the parties, the learned District Forum has framed the following points for deciding the complaint case filed by the complainant:-

1. Whether petitioner deposited cash amount of Rs.1 lac and again transferred Rs.1 lac from her SB account for opening 2 reinvestment certificates?
2. Whether the O.P. has deficiency of service by not paying the amount of the certificates and petitioner is entitled to get compensation?

6. Complainant-petitioner side produced the photocopy of certificates, copy of SB Account Pass Book, letters of the complainant to the Branch Manager, letter of the Branch Manager to the complainant, cash deposit slip dated 23.07.2012, cash deposit slip dated 10.07.2014, 13.11.2009, 22.01.2010, 09.06.2010, 21.08.2010, legal Notice, communication dated 23.09.2016. Complainant also produced the statement on affidavit of herself and one witness i.e. her son, Ram Gopal Das who deposited the cash amounting to Rs.1 lac in the opposite parties-Bank.
7. Opposite parties on the other hand produced copy of SB certificate, copy of deposit slip, copy of vigilance department report, copy of letter issued by Branch Manager, copy of cash receipt on 23.07.2012, copy of receipt dated 23.07.2012, computer generated account statement of the complainant against savings account. Opposite parties also produced the statement on affidavit of one Krishnapada Banik, Branch Manager of Tripura Gramin Bank who was examined as O.P.W.1. 
8. Considering the evidence on record and the documents exhibited, the learned District Forum in Paragraph-10 and 11 of the impugned judgment observed as follows:-

“10. In the written statement Gramin Bank respondent stated that complainant requested for fixed deposit of Rs.1 lac by debiting from her account. On that date one hand written certificate was handed over to Dulali Das. Subsequently the complainant requested Bank for providing certificate by system so computer generated certificate was issued for the complainant by mistake. So, there is no dispute on the matter of computer generated certificate for Rs.1 lac which amount was transferred from her SB account. Dispute is over the cash deposit. Petitioner produced the counterfoil of the cash deposit slip. Amount of Rs.1 lac in cash was deposited by his son Ram Gopal Das. And accordingly cash deposit certificate manually prepared was handed over. There after 2 times it was renewed. No question raised by Bank officials for about 3 years. After the lapse of 4 years it was stated that Rs.1 lac was not deposited by cash and cash deposit slip is fake one. The investigator could not detect the official who was responsible for this negligence if any. It may so happen that official may manipulate or did not deposit the amount and supplied the manually prepared certificate without entering the cash into the system. There is no place for presumption and assumption. The O.P. respondent Bank could file definite complaint before the investigating agency police for detection of crime in respect of preparation of fake deposit slip but it was no done. 

11. Learned advocate for the petitioner referred the decision of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum vide no. 2007 CPJ 221 NC in the case of Allahabad Bank VS Shiv SwarupShrivastav. In that case bank was made vicariously liable for the misappropriation by bank staff. In this case misappropriation of bank staff not proved, but clear negligence of the staff comes out from the evidence. Without receiving back certificate manually prepared how another certificate (computer generated) copy issued from the system can not be understood by us. Account number is written same in the 2 certificates and year after year certificates were reinvested without any detection. The cash deposit slip counterfoil is not proved fake in this case. On the other hand the transfer of Rs.1 lac from the account is admitted and proved by documents. Therefore we consider that petitioner paid Rs.1 lac in cash and also paid Rs.1 lac from her SB account on the same date. The contention of O.P. Gramin Bank that deposit slip of cash Rs.1 lac fake is not proved by convincing evidence. The deficiency of service by Tripura Gramin Bank is clearly found in this case. We therefore direct the O.P. Branch Manager Tripura Gramin Bank to arrange the encashment of 2 certificates with matured value and also pay her compensation amounting to Rs.10,000/- for the deficiency of service and Rs. 5,000/- for cost of litigation. Both the points are decided accordingly.”

9. After the aforesaid discussion/observation, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint petition directing the opposite parties to arrange encashment of two certificates and pay the maturity value with accrued interest and also Rs.15,000/- for deficiency of service and litigation cost and order is to be complied with and payment is to be made within one month, if not complied, it will carry interest @ 9% per annum as stated (supra).
10. Being aggrieved, the appellants-Bank preferred the instant appeal.
11. Miss Sarkar, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties-Bank, the appellants herein, while urging for setting aside the impugned judgment would contend that the learned District Forum came to a wrong conclusion that the complainant paid Rs.1 lac in cash without any evidence and the learned District Forum ignored the documentary evidence submitted by the opposite parties-Bank i.e. the 53 numbers of cash deposit slip of the appellants-Bank dated 23.07.2012 and computer generated cashiers scroll book for cash received dated 23.07.2012 and as such the observation of the learned District Forum is contrary to the established principle of law and without evidence and thus, liable to be set aside. She further submits that the learned District Forum ignored the internal investigation report of the Bank and failed to appreciate the fact that on 23.07.2012, Rs.1 lac was not deposited by any person in the cash counter and the appellant-Bank produced all the relevant documents in support of the said facts, but in spite of that, the learned District Forum held that the complainant deposited Rs.1 lac in cash on 23.07.2012 which is without any basis.  Thus the impugned judgment is liable to be interfered with.
12. On the other hand, Ms. Dhar, Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondent-complainant submits that the complainant is a senior citizen and totally depended on her sons to maintain her Savings Account as well as the Fixed Deposit Accounts and on 23.07.2012 she deposited Rs.1 lac in cash through her son Sri Ram Gopal Das, the P.W.2 and also deposited Rs.1 lac by way of transfer from her Savings Account and upon receipt of the aforesaid amounts, the opposite party no.2 issued two different cash certificates being No.440593 dated 23.07.2012 and another Certificate No.444916 dated 23.07.2012 respectively. She also submits that the complainant filed the copy of the cash deposit slip dated 23.07.2012 amounting to Rs.1 lac along with other cash deposit slip. According to her, though the opposite parties-Bank took a plea before the learned District Forum that the cash deposit slip of Rs.1 lac on 23.07.2012 is a fake one, but in support of that they neither produced the cashier who received the amount at the relevant time as a witness nor the Branch Manager of the Bank who issued the cash certificate at the relevant time, but one Krishnapada Banik who was holding the charge of Branch Manager from February, 2017 till May, 2017 was examined and the said Krishnapada Banik specifically stated in his cross-examination that he had no personal knowledge about the case matter and he had given evidence on record. The said witness also stated that the Register of the account related to renewal of certificate was not produced though fact remains that the cash certificate issued by the Bank were time to time renewed which will be evident from the cash certificate itself. She has finally contended that if Rs.1 lac was not deposited by cash then on what basis the Bank Authority issued the cash certificate and time to time renewed the same. Only when the complainant asked for withdrawal of the money, the opposite parties-Bank came with a plea that one cash certificate is a fake one.
13. We have gone through the evidence on record as well as the findings of the learned District Forum in the impugned judgment. It is admitted position that the cashier of the Bank at the relevant time expired before filing of the complaint case. Thus the said cashier could not be examined, but the Bank could have examined the person who is aware about the handwritings of the said cashier at the relevant time and also could have examined the Bank Manager of the relevant time who issued the certificate and also the Internal Investigator, Sri Pradip Chaudhury, but the opposite parties did not do so. Not only that, no question was raised by the bank official for about three years. They renewed the cash

 

 certificate twice without raising any question. The internal investigation done by the Investigator, namely, Senior Manager Vigilance, Sri Pradip Chaudhury could not detect the official who was responsible for this negligence, if any. According to us, the learned District Forum rightly observed that “It may so happen that official may manipulate or did not deposit the amount and supplied the manually prepared certificate without entering the cash into the system. There is no place for presumption and assumption. The O.P. respondent Bank could file definite complaint before the investigating agency police for detection of crime in respect of preparation of fake deposit slip but it was no (sic) done.” Though the opposite parties-Bank contended that the cash deposit slip counterfoil is a fake one as the account number is written same in the two certificates, but fact remains years after years, certificates were reinvested without any detection and also the opposite parties Bank failed to prove that the deposit slip counterfoil is a fake one by way of any evidence as from the cash deposit slip counterfoil, it is evident that one lac rupees was deposited in cash and also one lac rupees was transferred from the Savings Account of the complainant. We have no hesitation that the Bank Authority failed to discharge its duty to the poor customer like the complainant and rightly the learned District Forum found in this case the deficiency of service by the Tripura Gramin Bank.

14. .     In view of the above, we are declined to interfere with the impugned judgment as the learned District Forum did not commit any wrong. In the result, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit.

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

 

 

MEMBER State Commission Tripura

MEMBER State Commission Tripura

PRESIDENT State Commission Tripura