Tripura

West Tripura

CC/81/2016

Sri Biswajit Saha & Sri Abhijit Saha. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Tapan Bhattacharjee, Branch Manager Union Bank of India & 1 another. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.T.Saha, Mr.D.Saha

21 Mar 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

 

CASE NO:  CC-  81   of  2016

1. Sri Biswajit Saha,
S/O- Late Sudhir Ranjan Saha,
 
2. Sri Abhijit Saha,
S/O- Late Sudhir Ranjan Saha,

Both are resident of
Chittaranjan Road,
P.O. Collegetilla, P.S. East Agartala,
West Tripura District.        ..........Complainants.

             ___VERSUS___

1. Sri Tapan Bhattacharjee,
Branch Manager,
Union Bank of India,
Agartala, Branch 
4, H.G.B. Road, Agartala,
Tripura West.

2. Sri Satyajit Saha,
S/O- Late Sudhir Ranjan Saha,
Chittaranjan Road, Near Bandhan Biabari,
P.O. Collegetilla, P.S. East Agartala,
West Tripura District.        ............Opposite parties.

      __________PRESENT__________

 SRI A. PAL,
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SRI U. DAS
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

C O U N S E L

For the complainants        : Sri Tapan Saha,
                      Sri Debal Saha,
                      Advocates.

For the O.P. No.1            : Sri Prabir Saha,
                      Sri Diptanu Debnath,
                      Advocates.    
                    
For the O.P. No.2             : Sri Sujit Adhikari,
                      Sri Tanmoy Chakraborty,
                      Sri Sankar Bhattacharjee,
                       Advocates.
                     
                         
        
        JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON: 21.03.2017

J U D G M E N T
        This case arises on the petition filed by Biswajit Saha and Abhijit Saha U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. They filed the petition against the Branch Manager of Union Bank of India and one Satyajit Saha. Case filed against the Branch Manager by name which is not proper. Tapan Bhattacharjee acted as Branch Manager not in his personal capacity. Therefore, case will be treated against the Branch Manager of Union Bank of India not against Tapan Bhattacharjee. Petitioners case as disclosed from the petition in short is that the petitioners being partners of Joy Chandimata Poles Industry opened current bank account in the Union Bank of India, Agartala Branch. The partners appointed Abhijit Saha, petitioner No.2 to operate bank account and also make other correspondence. In 1st part of May on 11.05.16 Abhijit Saha being the attorney of the firm issued cheque for Rs.5 lacs. But when the cheque was placed before the bank for encashment it was dishonored though there was sufficient balance of Rs.75,62,406/- in A/C. On enquery the attorney came to learn that on the objection of O.P. No.2 another partner Satyajit Saha the transaction of the account was stopped. Thereafter the 2 partners requested the manager of the bank to allow to operate the bank account for running the industry. But it was not allowed. Huge amount was deposited in the bank account but it was not allowed to be withdrawn. The petitioner therefore suffered loss of Rs.19,76,000/- due to the deficiency of service of the bank and prayed for redress. 

2.        O.P. No.1, Bank Manager Union Bank of India appeared, filed written statement. O.P. No.2, Satyajit Saha also filed written statement denying the claim. It is submitted that the dispute is not related to consumers at all. Satyajit Saha one of the partner revoked the power of attorney. So the petitioner being the attorney can not act on behalf of the firm. The bank manager also stated that as the dispute between the partners not settled so operation of the bank account was stopped. The bank requested before the partners to resolve their dispute. There was no deficiency of service by the bank. 
3.        On the basis of contention raised by the parties following points cropped up for determination;
        (I)Whether the O.P. No.2 being the partner has the authority to stop the operation of bank account in the name of firm?
        (II)Whether the bank authority had deficiency of service by stopping the operation of bank account on the request of one partner and thereby under obligation to pay compensation for deficiency of service?
4.        Petitioner side produced the Production registration, Bank Account Statement, Partnership Agreement, Power of Attorney, Electric bill, Rent for Lease Premises,  correspondences, Legal Notices, Statement of Salary. Petitioners also produced the statement of affidavit of Biswajit Saha, Abhijit Saha & Jagadish Das.

5.        O.P. on the other hand produced power of attorney, revocation of power of attorney, letter by O.P. No.2 addressing Manager, Union Bank of India, Resolution dated 21.07.16, letters to the partners by Branch Manager. 

6.        On the basis of all these these evidence on record we shall now determine the above points.
Findings and decision:
7.        We have gone through the Power of Attorney executed by Biswajit Saha, Abhijit Saha & Satyajit Saha of Joy Chandimata Poles Industry. By that power of attorney 2nd partner, Abhijit Saha was empowered to operate and execute all official correspondence as well as the signing authority of the firm. Thus Abhijit Saha was appointed as a signatory of the firm. It is admitted fact that the CC account in the Union Bank of India opened in the year 2012. After execution of the power of attorney that account was being operated by Abhijit Saha as attorney. It is also admitted fact that one of the partner, Satyajit Saha canceled the power of attorney on 09.05.16. A copy of that cancellation of power of attorney is produced. Revocation of power of attorney is produced. On 10.05.16 Satyajit Saha wrote a letter to the Branch Manager, Union of India stating that due to unavoidable circumstances he has cancelled the power of attorney. So, stop debiting the amount of CD account till further intimation. It is admitted fact that on the strength of this letter operation of the CD account in the name of Joy Chandimata Poles Industry was stopped. But it is stopped on one side i.e., debiting was stopped, crediting not stopped. One copy of General Meeting of 3 partners of Joy Chandimata Poles Industry also produced before us. By that meeting on 21.07.16 unanimous decision passed stating cheque will be signed by all partners Biswajit Saha, Abhijit Saha and Satyajit Saha. That communication made on 21.07.16. The bank authority by its letter dated 08.08.16 informed that the partners should submit the minutes of general meeting of the firm positively in the letter head of the firm for taking their action in the matter of re-opening the account. It is surprising that the manager, Union Bank of India acted on the basis of a letter by O.P. No.2, Satyajit Saha. It was in a white paper not in the letter head of the firm. But when the 2 partners wrote letter it was not accepted as it was not written in the letter head of the firm. Satyajit Saha was not the attorney or signatory of the firm as enshrined in the power of attorney. The partnership firm was not dissolved. 

8.        We have gone through the deed of partnership. 3 partners signed in that partnership. Share of the partners were 33.5 %. In the stipulation it is written that no individual partners of the firm shall without consent in writing of the other partners may be entitled to operate bank account on behalf of the firm by finance charge holding partners. The partner shall be just and loyal to the partners in all transactions relating to the firm. All partners are equally liable to execute the noted work till the continuation of  the firm. In case dispute arise in any dispute between the partners it is to be resolved through arbitration. The partners are very much aware about it. 
        
9.            Learned advocate for the O.P. Bank Manager preferred the section 21 of the partnership Act. As per that section the partner has the authority, in emergency to do such acts for protecting the firm from loss. And such acts will bind the firm. But in this case O.P. No.2 failed to show that he made such request for protecting the firm's interest. He only stated that for unavoidable circumstances the debiting is to be stopped. How the trade will be continued if the operation of the bank account is stopped not clarified. As per Partnership Act every partner is liable jointly with all the other partners and also severally for all acts of the firm done while he is  a partner. So such acts of one partner O.P. No.2  if firm suffers loss then he himself is to bear it. Bank manager acted on the letter of one partner but did not act on the letters given by 3 partners informing that henceforth 3 partners of the firm will sign in the cheque of the firm. Bank manager insisted that minutes to be written in the letter head of the firm. This is also improper. Bank manager was aware that the firm not dissolved and money is being credited in the name of the firm. If the firm remains alive, partnership remain alive then attorney was empowered to operate the bank account. In case of death of a partner, partnership will not be dissolved even if any partner shall intend to retire he shall serve on another partner 2 months notice in writing indicating his intention. In case of a retired partner his assets and liabilities in the firm will be ascertained as on date of retirement and be finalized mutually by the parties. Without retirement from the partnership firm one partner whimsically can not ask for stopping the bank account. Therefore acting on the request of one partner  to stop the debiting of the bank account was improper. Bank has the deficiency of service in this regard. Subsequently by another letter 3 partners informed the Manager that the operation of bank account should be allowed. On signatures of 3 partners cheque should  have been allowed. 2 partners Biswajit Saha and Abhijit Saha by the board meeting dated 18.05.16 informed the Bank Manager to allow Abhijit Saha to operate the bank account but that was turned down by the Manager. He adviced the partners to dissolve their dispute amicably. Legal notice was also given to the Bank Manager. But inspite of all that petitioners were not allowed to operate bank account. Due to the stopping made 2 partners suffered. Business  could not be done. Petitioners produced some documents, electricity and other liabilities to show that they suffered loss of 19 lacs. The firm is alive and nothing produced before us to show that for non payment they suffered some loss. The inconvenience definitely took place but it was due to the act of one partner and the activities of the manager of Union Bank.

10.            P.W.2, Abhijit Saha in his statement of affidavit stated that the account was operated by him as a attorney without interruption up to the month of April, 2016. Operation was not allowed since 11.05.16. Total balance in the account was Rs.75,62,406/- at the time of presenting the cheque.

11.            P.W.1, Biswajit Saha repeated the same matter. P.W.3 Jagadish Das, Manager of the Joy Chandimata Poles industry stated the same fact. 
12.            O.P. No.2, Satyajit Saha also produced the statement on affidavit. He denied that 3 brothers communicated the bank for running the bank account. 
13.            O.P. No.1, Bank Manager also produced the statement of affidavit. He admitted that Abhijit Saha objected since May, 2016. On the basis of the letter dated 10.05.16 written by O.P. No.2 he closed the operation of the account. He referred Section 20 of the partnership Act. But that is applicable when the partners came to a contract between them to extend or restrict the implied authority. But no such contract was made unanimously. O.P. No.2 Satyajit Saha requested to stop the debiting of the bank account. Bank manager acted on that letter and caused deficiency of service. By that deficiency of service the partnership firm suffered. 
14.            From the evidence on record it is clear that the bank manager acted on the request of one partner without understanding the principles of Partnership Act and also the terms and conditions of the partnership agreement. This is deficiency of service as the partnership firm is still alive agreement not repudiated. So, unanimously one partner can not stop the operation of the bank account. We therefore, direct the Opposite Party  Bank to allow the partners to operate the bank account to withdraw the cheque amount through cheque system as they resolved to withdraw the amount through signing cheques by 3 partners. They should be allowed to do so. If 2  partners signed 2/3 of the capital balance is allowed to be withdrawn for running the firm. For deficiency of service the Bank Manager have to pay compensation to the petitioners. Petitioners claimed Rs.19 lacs  but we consider that due to misunderstanding and the dispute between the partners the Bank Manager had to do it. So we direct him to pay compensation amounting to Rs.15,000/-(Rupees Fifteen Thousand) and litigation cost Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand), total Rs.20,000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand). Both the points are decided accordingly.
15.            In view of our above findings over the points this case is partly allowed. We direct Bank Manager, Union Bank of India to allow the partners to withdraw money for running the firm. If the 3 partners signed in the cheque then it should be honored to the extent of whole amount. If it is signed by 2 partners then 2/3 of the balance amount should be allowed to withdraw. Bank manager is also directed to pay compensation to the petitioner Biswajit Saha and Abhijit Saha Rs.20,000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand) for deficiency of service and cost of litigation.                 
                                
                    Announced.

 

SRI A. PAL
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,
MEMBER,
 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA    SRI U. DAS
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.