Tripura

StateCommission

A/50/2016

The Branch Manager, Tripura Gramin Bank - Complainant(s)

Versus

Smt. Sukumari Paul - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Amitabha Roy barman, Smt. Leena Sarkar

09 Mar 2017

ORDER

​

Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala.

 

 

 

Case No.A.50.2016

 

 

1. The Branch Manager,

Tripura Gramin Bank,

Agartala Branch,

R.M.S. Chowmuhani,

West Tripura, Agartala.

 

… … … … Appellant/Opposite Party No.1

​

1. Smt. Sukumari Paul,

D/o Late Kedan Chand Paul

Old Agartala, P.S. Bodhjungnagar,

District - West Tripura.

 

… … … … … Respondent/Complainant.

 

 

Present

 

Mr. Justice U.B. Saha,

President,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

Mrs. Sobhana Datta,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

Mr. Narayan Chandra Sharma,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

 

 

 

For the Appellant:                       Mr. Amitabha Roy Barman, Adv.

For the Respondent:                Mr. Anjan Kanti Pal, Adv.

Date of Hearing and Delivery of Order: 09.03.2017.

 

O R D E R [O R A L]

 

 

U.B. Saha, J,

The instant appeal filed by the appellant, the Branch Manager, Tripura Gramin Bank (hereinafter referred to as Gramin Bank/opposite party no.1), Agartala Branch under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against the judgment dated 07.05.2016 passed by the Ld. District Consumers Disputes Redressal Forum, West Tripura, Agartala (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Case No. C.C. 55 of 2015 along with an application for condoning the delay of 182 days in preferring the appeal against the said judgment.    

2. The facts for filing of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the respondent Smt. Sukumari Paul (hereinafter referred to as complainant/petitioner) applied for a loan for self-employment purpose under the scheme of K.V.I.C’s Prime Minister Employment Generation Programme. Accordingly, the Khadi & Village Industry Commission, who was the opposite party no.2 before the District Forum sanctioned her loan for Rs.5,00,000/-, on which @5% shall be borne by the complainant and @ Rs.95% shall be paid by the Bank as per sanctioned order of the opposite party no.2 and after sanction of the said loan proposal of the complainant, the sanctioned order has been sent to the appellant-opposite party no.1 Gramin Bank for disbursement of the said loan amount to the complainant and accordingly, the appellant-opposite party Gramin Bank sanctioned loan in favour of the complainant amounting to Rs.4,75,000/-. Four numbers of Fixed Deposit Certificates were given to the Bank as security of the loan amount in total Rs.1,33,000/- against the sanctioned loan amounting to Rs.4,75,000/-. After receiving the said amount of Rs.1,50,000/-, the complainant initiated to setting up her mini rice mill unit, but as the remaining amount of Rs.3,25,00/- was not paid by the appellant-Bank, she could not start her project work. In this regard, the complainant time to time informed the matter to the opposite party no.1 Gramin Bank, but the said amount was not released. As a result, she could not proceed with her project work and being harassed, she also requested the appellant Gramin Bank for return of four numbers of Fixed Deposit Certificates. Ultimately, she filed an application under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with a prayer for Rs.50,000/- as compensation, Rs.1,00,000/- for harassment and mental agony and also to direct the opposite party Gramin Bank to return back four numbers of Fixed Deposit Certificates for Rs.1,33,000/- as well as to release the subsidy amount of said loan of Rs.1,42,500/- after adjusting the release loan amount of Rs.1,50,000/- etc.
3. The appellant Gramin Bank Authority appeared and filed written statement denying the claim of the complainant. In the written statement, it is stated that the Bank made personal contact with the complainant. As the complainant did not utilize the disbursed loan portion and also failed to repay the same, the matter was placed before the Lok Adalat, but it was not settled. It is also stated that the opposite party no.2, Khadi & Village Industry Commission failed to release the subsidy amount. So, subsidy could not be adjusted.
4. The opposite party no.2 also filed written statement denying the claim. It is stated in the written statement that the complainant is to take up the matter with the Gramin Bank for disbursing the loan amount, as they have nothing to do in this regard.
5. Complainant side produced power of attorney, legal notice, forwarding project, notice, pending margin money claim, bank deposit slip, bank certificates and the request letter/prayer, which were exhibited by the District Forum as Exhibit-1 series.

The complainant also examined one witness, namely, Kesab Chandra Paul, whose name was given by the complainant in the Fixed Deposit Certificate as guarantor/security of the loan amount to the opposite party no.1 Gramin Bank.

The opposite party no.1, Gamin Bank on the other hand, produced one circular of the Bank and examined one witness, namely, Parimal Sarma, Senior Branch Manager of Tripura Gramin Bank, Agartala Branch.

6. The Ld. District Forum after considering the evidence on record including documents submitted by the parties passed the impugned judgment directing the opposite party no.1 Gramin Bank to return the Fixed Deposit Certificates to the petitioner and also to realise the loan amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the respondent-complainant without imposing any interest over it and deduction of subsidy amount if any, as received by the Gramin Bank from Industry Department or Government. The District Forum also directed the appellant opposite party no.1, Gramin Bank to pay amounting to Rs.20,000/- to the petitioner Smt. Sukumari Paul, as she suffered due to deficiency of service of Gramin Bank. The direction of the District Forum is to be followed within two months.
7. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant Gramin Bank has filed the present appeal along with condonation petition for condoning the delay of 182 days in preferring the appeal.
8. We have heard Mr. Amitabha Roy Barman, Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant-opposite party no.1, Tripura Gramin Bank on the question of condonation of delay as well as admission of the present appeal. Also heard Mr. Anjan Kanti Pal, Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondent-complainant, Smt. Sukumari Paul.
9. We have carefully gone through the documents and material on record. The order impugned in the proceeding was passed on 07.05.2016 by the Ld. District Forum. In terms of the provisions contained in Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the present appeal should have been filed within a period of 30 days from the date of the judgment. The proviso of the aforesaid section provides that the State Commission may entertain an appeal even after expiry of the above said period of 30 days, if it is satisfied that there was ‘sufficient cause’ for not filing the same within the above said period.
10. Admittedly, the present appeal has not been filed by the appellant Gramin Bank within the prescribed period of 30 days, but the same has been filed on 06.12.2016 i.e. after a delay of 182 days. In the application for condonation of delay, it is stated that one Ld. Advocate namely, Sri Kishore Bhattacharjee conducted the case before the Ld. District Forum on behalf of the appellant Bank, but due to his busy schedule and heavy workload, the Ld. Advocate Mr. Bhattacharjee could not intimate the appellant Bank regarding the delivery of judgment on 07.05.2016 and also did not submit the copy of the judgment and as such, the appellant Bank was in complete dark regarding the delivery of the impugned judgment. Only after the Execution Case was filed by the respondent-complainant before the Ld. District Forum, the appellant Bank came to know about the judgment on 09.11.2016 and thereafter, the appellant Bank issued a letter to the Ld. Advocate Sri Kishore Bhattacharjee on 22.011.2016, but Mr. Bhattacharjee, Ld. Advocate did not reply to the said letter even after receipt of the same. Except this ground, no other ground has been taken in the condonation petition.
11. The respondent-complainant by way of filing objection has specifically stated that after passing the judgment dated 07.05.2016, the respondent-complainant and his power of attorney Sri Kesab Chandra Paul have several times visited the Branch of the Gramin Bank at R.M.S. Chowmuhani  for execution of the judgment and he had also requested the Bank Manager to return all the Fixed Deposit Certificates and to make calculation of his statement of loan accounts, but the Bank Manager did not heed his request, nor complied the judgment of the District Forum.
12. The appellant Gramin Bank did not file any affidavit sworn by Mr. Kishore Bhattachrjee, Ld. Advocate in support of their contention. Non-communication of the impugned judgment by the engaged Council of the Bank Sri Kishore Bhattacharjee is the internal matter of the Bank. Knowledge of the Counsel is the knowledge of the party. The concerned lawyer did not file an affidavit stating that he failed to communicate the impugned judgment in time.
13. According to us, the reasons for not filing of the appeal in time, is not supported by any documents, except some statement.
14. As already stated, there is a statutory provision enabling the Commission to entertain the appeal even after the expiry of the statutory period prescribed for filing an appeal, provided the appellant satisfies that there was ‘sufficient cause’ for not filing the same within time. The words 'sufficient cause' occurring in proviso to Section 15 of the Act, are of utmost significance. As per settled law, culled out from various judicial decisions, the above expression, 'sufficient cause' though deserves to receive a liberal construction, yet, a just and equitable balance has to be maintained between the right secured by the respondent as a result of the expiry of the prescribed period of limitation and the injustice of depriving the appellant of adjudication of his grievances on the merits of his appeal for causes beyond his reasonable control, which means the cause is bonafide and beyond the control of the appellant. Though no hard and fast line can be drawn as to what affords 'sufficient cause' in a given case, yet, again as per settled law, any cause which prevents a person from approaching the Court within time is ‘sufficient cause’. In doing so, it is the test of a reasonable man in normal circumstances, which has to be applied.
15. If the above criterion is applied to the present case, it is noticed that the application, seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal miserably fails to meet the above requirements because as per appellant’s own case, it is Mr. Bhattacharjee who did not communicate the impugned judgment to the Bank in time, but the Bank neither produced any letter nor submitted any affidavit of Mr. Bhattacharjee in support of its contention. Not only that, even after receipt of the notice on 09.11.2016 in connection with the Execution Case, the appeal was preferred on 06.12.2016. There is no explanation regarding the said delay. Having regard to the above facts, in our opinion, whatever liberal interpretation might be put on the words ‘sufficient cause’, it would be impossible for us to hold that there was no negligence or want of bonafide on the part of the appellant. In our opinion, the appellant has miserably failed to show ‘sufficient cause’ for condoning the delay and, therefore, the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal is hereby rejected.
16. The present appeal, filed by the appellant, besides being barred by limitation, is also devoid of merits because before set off the Fixed Deposit Certificate no notice was issued to the loanee though, the notice was given to the guarantor. It is the loanee who was initially responsible for refund the loan amount and only when the loanee failed to deposit the loan amount, the guarantor will be responsible. More so, the Ld. District Forum in the impugned judgment directed the Bank to return the Fixed Deposit Certificates to the petitioner and also to realize the loan amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the petitioner without imposing any interest over it. The said findings of the District Forum suffer from no infirmity so as to call for any interference by us in exercise of the appellate jurisdiction.

In view of the above, the appeal also being devoid of substance is dismissed in-limine. The interim order passed earlier stands vacated. The appellant Gramin Bank is at liberty to seek time for complying with the judgment of the Ld. District Forum before the Executing Court in accordance with law, if so advised.            

 

 

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