Tripura

StateCommission

A/3/2018

The Chairman Tripura Gramin Bank - Complainant(s)

Versus

Smt. Sheli Ray Choudhury - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Tapan Kumar Modak

22 Jun 2018

ORDER

 

Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala.

 

Case No.A.3.2018

 

1. The Chairman,

Tripura Gramin Bank,

Head Office: Abhoynagar, Agartala,

West Tripura.   

 

2. The Branch Manager,

Tripura Gramin Bank,

Dhaleswar Branch, Agartala,

West Tripura.

… … … … … Appellant/Opposite Parties.

Vs

 

1. Smt. Sheli Ray Choudhury,

W/o Late Subir Roy Choudhury,

Hospital Road Extension,

Gandhighat, Agartala - 799001.

… … … … … Respondent/Complainant.

 

 

 

Present

Mr. Justice U.B. Saha,

President,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

Mr. Narayan Chandra Sharma,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

 

 

 

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

For the Respondent:                                      Mr. Koushik Nath, Adv.

Date of Hearing & Delivery of Judgment:     22.06.2018.

 

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

 

U.B. Saha, J,

The instant appeal is filed by the appellants against the judgment dated 12.12.2017 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Agartala (hereinafter referred to as District Forum), West Tripura in Case No.C.C.77 of 2017 whereby and whereunder the learned District Forum allowed the complaint petition filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as complainant) with a direction that the O.P. is to pay interest over Rs.1,86,560/- @9% per annum from 30.12.2015 to 27.07.2016 and the rest amount till payment along with Rs.20,000/- as compensation and litigation cost. Amount is to be paid within two months.

2. Heard Mr. Tapan Kumar Modak, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants (hereinafter referred to as opposite parties/Bank) as well as Mr. Koushik Nath, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-complainant.
3. Brief facts needed to be discussed are as follows:-

The complainant, Smt. Sheli Roy Choudhury filed an application under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the learned District Forum alleging that her husband Subir Roy Choudhury now deceased had taken loan under Consumer Durable Scheme (CDL) amounting to Rs.3,00,000/- from the appellants, Tripura Gramin Bank, Dhaleswar Branch on 28.04.2012 and the said loan was covered by an insurance policy (GMRA scheme) with the LICI. Her husband paid EMI of the loan amount regularly till his death on 16.06.2015, but the Bank after the death of her deceased husband knowing fully well that the entire loan amount was insured sent a letter on 26.06.2015 to the Drawing & Disbursement Officer (DDO) i.e. Executive Officer, Tripura Khadi & Village Board for recovery of the outstanding loan amount for Rs.1,86,560/- from the terminal benefit of her deceased husband. Knowing the aforesaid fact, the complainant vide her letter dated 03.07.2015 requested the Branch Manager, TGB, Dhaleswar Branch, the appellant no.2 herein, for an early settlement of the insurance claim in connection with the loan account of her deceased husband being the same was insured with the LICI. On 30.12.2015, the DDO i.e. the Executive Officer, Tripura Khadi & Village Board issued an A/C payee cheque amounting to Rs.1,86,560/- as claimed by the opposite party no.2 and the said cheque was encashed on 06.01.2016. On 13.06.2016, the opposite parties-Bank received Rs.2,00,640/- from the LICI and out of which an amount of Rs.1,83,385/- was refunded to the account of the complainant. Aggrieved by the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party-Bank, the complainant submitted the complaint petition before the learned District Forum claiming interest over Rs.1,86,560/- with effect from 30.12.2015 i.e. the date on which the DDO issued the cheque in favour of the opposite parties Bank on repayment of the outstanding loan amount as demanded by the opposite parties Bank to him and also Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation.

4. Opposite parties, Bank appeared and filed their written statement denying the claim of the complainant. In their written statement it is stated that the loanee i.e. the deceased husband of the complainant promised to repay the loan from his salary bill. Accordingly, on the death of deceased loanee, the appellants authority realized the loan amount of Rs.1,86,560/- from the DDO of Tripura Khadi & Village Board i.e. the employer of the deceased loanee. As the DDO did not pay the outstanding loan amount immediately after receipt of the letter of the appellants, the outstanding loan amount increased from Rs.1,86,560/- to Rs.2,02,423/-. So, outstanding balance increased to Rs.17,255/- and appellants Bank recovered the aforesaid amount from Rs.2,00,640/- received from the amount paid by LICI i.e. Rs.17,255/-. Therefore, there was no deficiency or fault committed by the opposite parties-Bank.
5. The learned District Forum after proper examination of the pleadings of the parties framed the following points for deciding the case:-

1. Whether the realisation of the amount from the employer on the death of the husband of the petitioner was proper?
2. Whether there was deficiency of service by the O.P. and petitioner is entitled to get compensation?

6. The complainant produced the loan application form, letters, loan statement and also her statement on affidavit. She has also produced the sanction memo, letter, Death Certificate of her deceased husband, Survival Certificate.
7. On the other hand, opposite parties produced the loan accounts, certificate of the DDO, letter by the Branch Manager, Tripura Gramin Bank, the opposite party no.2 to the DDO of Tripura Khadi & Village Board and also examined one witness, namely, Sri Dilip Das i.e. appellant no.2 as O.P.W.1.
8. The learned District Forum after considering the evidence on record passed the impugned judgment.
9. Mr. Modak, Ld. Counsel appearing along with the Branch Manager of TGB i.e. the opposite party no.2 would contend that the learned District Forum committed error while passing the impugned judgment particularly not considering the fact that the DDO of Tripura Khadi & Village Board paid the loan amount almost after six months from the date of receipt of the letter. According to him, due to delayed payment of the outstanding loan amount by the DDO, the interest on the outstanding loan amount was calculated till received of the full amount. He further submits that the learned District Forum also committed error not asking the respondent-complainant for adding the DDO as well as the LICI as a party in the case. He has finally contended that there was no deficiency in service so far the appellant-Bank is concerned.
10. On the other hand, Mr. Nath, Ld. Counsel appearing for the complainant while supporting the impugned judgment would contend that the learned District Forum did not commit any error while passing the impugned judgment. He again submits that it is the Bank-opposite parties who failed to take up the matter regarding the outstanding loan of the deceased husband of the complainant with the LICI though it was within their knowledge that the entire loan amount was insured with the LICI and the copy of the policy was also submitted by the deceased husband of the complainant to the Bank. He further submits that the complainant has neither any grievance against the DDO nor against the LICI, as the outstanding loan was not recovered by the Bank in time either from the DDO of Tripura Khadi & Village Board or from the Insurance Company. He has finally contended that once the outstanding loan of the deceased loanee as demanded by the Bank Authority was paid by the DDO of Tripura Khadi & Village Board, the Bank Authority cannot claim any amount from the LICI in the name of repayment of the outstanding loan amount. They also cannot claim and deduct any amount on account of the subsequent interest of Rs.17,255/-.
11. We have gone through the impugned judgment and also considered the submission of the Ld. Counsel appearing for the parties.
12. It is an admitted fact that the appellant-opposite parties Bank was informed regarding the death of the deceased loanee on 22.06.2015 i.e. after six days of the death and the Bank Authority did not take up the matter with the LICI though the complainant, the nominee of the insurance policy claimed the amount of insurance through the appellants-Bank. The appellants-Bank asked for outstanding loan amount from two sources i.e. one from the DDO of Tripura Khadi & Village Board and other from the LICI which was not proper on the part of the opposite party Bank. The opposite parties-Bank ought to have taken up the matter with the Insurance Company first and then with the DDO of Tripura Khadi & Village Board being the entire loan amount was insured and the deceased loanee paid the EMI of the loan amount regularly till his death.  
13. The learned District Forum in its findings specifically stated as under:-

“7. From the letters of DDO, Khadi & Village Industry it is found that Rs.1,86,560/- was realized from the salary and other benefits of the deceased on 30st December 2015. The loanee husband of the petitioner died on 16.06.15. It is admitted position that the loan was covered by insurance. Gramin Bank authority was aware that in case of death of loanee the amount of loan along with interest will be paid by LICI and for that premium was paid to LICI. Knowing fully Gramin Bank authority wrote letter to the DDO of loanee for realization of the outstanding amount of Rs.1,86,560/- and realized it. From the account it is found that after death even the interest was counted. The loan account was not closed after receiving Rs.1,86,560/-. The outstanding loan was shown Rs.2,02,423/- on 31.12.15. Thereafter the amount was realized as the LICI paid the loan amount with interest. It is admitted that after realization of the amount with interest again some amount was claimed showing outstanding. Generally after death of the loaneee loan account should have been closed. The amount of outstanding was realized but thereafter the loan account was not closed. For making delay in payment LICI have paid the interest. After receiving the LICI amount Gramin Bank authority did not close the loan account. 

8. From the sanction letter and other related papers as produced before us it is clear that the bank authority realized the amount from the death benefit of the deceased loanee. Due to such the nominee, Sheli Roy Choudhury along with her minor son and daughter a aged mother of the deceased faced troubles. They are in need of money at that time but the Gramin Bank realized the amount from the employer knowing fully that the amount of the loan will be paid by the LICI as the loan was covered by policy. The amount was shown Rs.2,02,423/- on 06.01.16. The loanee died on 16.06.15. But the interest continued even on payment of Rs.1,86,560/-. Rs.1,83,385/- remitted to the account of the complainant Sheli Roy Choudhury on 27.06.16 after receipt of Rs.2,00640/- from LICI. LICI counted interest and paid Rs.2,00640/- but the bank authority  continued  the account  with interest. This activity of the bank authority appears to be deficiency of service as on death loan should not have been realised from death benefit. For that deficiency of service Petitioner suffered. We therefore have come to the views that this realisation of the loan amount of Rs.1,86,000/- from the employer of the deceased was uncalled for as the loan was covered by LICI  and paid by LICI with interest as  such petitioner is entitled to get back Rs.1,86,560/- with interest @9% P.A. From 30.12.15 the date of payment, out of that Rs.1,83,000/- is paid on 27.06.16. so from 27.06.16 no interest will be counted on Rs.1,86,385/- after such calculation of the interest amount of interest is to be paid to the petitioner within 2 months. For the deficiency of service O.P. is to pay additional Rs.15,000/- and Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost total Rs.20,000/-. Direct the O.P. to pay interest over Rs.1,86,560/- @ 9% P.A. from 30.12.15 to 27.07.16 and the rest amount till payment along with Rs.20,000/- as compensation and litigation cost. Amount is to paid within 2 months.”

14.    Upon going through the findings of the learned District Forum we are of the view that the learned District Forum did not commit any error as admittedly the appellant-opposite parties Bank received the demanded amount from the DDO and thereafter also calculated the interest on the outstanding loan amount till the receipt of the insured amount from the LICI.

In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit. No order as to costs.

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

 

 

 

MEMBER State Commission Tripura

PRESIDENT State Commission Tripura