Tripura

StateCommission

A/22/2017

Sri Tapan Bhattacharjee - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri. Biswajit Saha - Opp.Party(s)

Sri. P. Saha, Sri. Biswanath Majumder, Sri.Diptanu Debnath

03 Jun 2017

ORDER

Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala.

 

PRESENT

 

Hon’ble Mr. Justice U.B. Saha,

President,

State Commission

 

Mrs. Sobhana Datta,

Member,

State Commission.

 

Mr. Narayan Ch. Sharma,

Member,

State Commission.

 

APPEAL CASE No.A/20/2017

 

 

1. Sri Satyajit Saha,

S/o Late Sudhir Ranjan Saha,

Chitta Ranjan Road,

P.O. Agartala College, P.S. East Agartala,

District - West Tripura, Pin:799004.

                                                   ….    ….    ….    ….    Appellant/Opposite Party No.2.

                                                           

        Vs

 

 

 

1. Sri Biswajit Saha,

S/o Late Sudhir Ranjan Saha

 

2. Sri Abhijit Saha,

S/o Late Sudhir Ranjan Saha

 

Both are the resident of

Chitta Ranjan Road,

P.O. Agartala College, P.S. East Agartala,

District - West Tripura, Pin:799004.

….    ….    ….    ….   Respondent/Complainants.

3. Sri Tapan Bhattacharjee,

Branch Manager,

Union Bank of India, Agartala Branch,

4 H.G.B. Road, P.O. Agartala HPO,

Tripura West, Agartala, Pin:799001.

    ….    ….    ….    ….   Respondent/Opposite Party No.1.

 

For the Appellant                           : Mr. Sankar Bhattacharya, Adv. & Mr. Sujit Adhikari, Adv.

For the Respondent Nos.1 & 2       : Mr. Tapan Saha, Adv.

For the Respondent No.3               : Mr. Prabir Saha, Adv.

 

 

 

 

 

APPEAL CASE No.A/22/2017

 

 

 

1. Sri Tapan Bhattacharjee,

Branch Manager,

Union Bank of India, Agartala Branch,

4 H.G.B. Road, P.O. Agartala HPO,

Tripura West, Agartala, Pin:799001.

 

                                                   ….    ….    ….    ….   Appellant/Opposite Party No.1.

 

              Vs

 

1. Sri Biswajit Saha,

S/o Late Sudhir Ranjan Saha

 

2. Sri Abhijit Saha,

S/o Late Sudhir Ranjan Saha

 

Both are the resident of

Chitta Ranjan Road,

P.O. Agartala College, P.S. East Agartala,

District - West Tripura, Pin:799004.

….    ….    ….    ….   Respondent/Complainants.

 

3. Sri Satyajit Saha,

S/o Late Sudhir Ranjan Saha,

Chitta Ranjan Road,

P.O. Agartala College, P.S. East Agartala,

District - West Tripura, Pin:799004.

                                                  ….    ….    ….    ….   Respondent/Opposite Party No.2.

 

 

For the Appellant                           : Mr. Prabir Saha, Adv.

For the Respondent Nos.1 & 2        : Mr. Tapan Saha, Adv.

For the Respondent No.3               : Mr. Sankar Bhattacharya, Adv. & Mr. Sujit Adhikari, Adv.

Date of Hearing & Delivery of Judgment: 03.06.2017.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

U.B. Saha,J,

Both these appeals have been filed by the appellant, Sri Satyajit Saha in Appeal Case No.A/20/2017 (hereinafter referred to as opposite party no.2) and appellant, Sri Tapan Bhattacharjee, Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, Agartala Branch in Appeal Case No.A/22/2017 (hereinafter referred to as opposite party no.1/Bank) under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Judgment dated 21.03.2017 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as District Forum), West Tripura, Agartala in Case No. C.C. 81 of 2016 whereby and whereunder the Ld. District Forum directed the opposite party no.1, Union Bank of India to allow the partners of Joy Chandimata Poles Industry, the account holders of current Account No.361601010128404 to operate the said bank account to withdraw any amount through cheque system as they resolved to withdraw the amount through signing cheques by three partners and if two partners signed, then ⅔ of the capital balance would be allowed to be withdrawn for running the firm. The Ld. District Forum also directed the opposite party no.1-Bank to pay compensation of Rs.15,000/- for deficiency of service and Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation, in total Rs.20,000/- to both the complainants i.e. the respondent nos.1 & 2 in both the appeals.  

As the facts involved in both the cases are similar and the questions of law involved are also same, both the appeals are taken up together for disposal by this common judgment.

2. Heard Mr. Sankar Bhattacharya, Ld. Counsel along with Mr. Sujit Adhikari, Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant, Sri Satyajit Saha in Appeal Case No.A/20/2017 and who is respondent no.3 in Appeal Case No.A/22/2017 and Mr. Tapan Saha, Ld. Counsel appearing for both the complainants, i.e. the respondent nos.1 & 2 in both the appeals (hereinafter referred to as complainants). Also heard Mr. Prabir Saha, Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant, Sri Tapan Bhattacharjee, Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, Agartala Branch in Appeal Case No.A/22/2017 and is respondent no.3 in Appeal Case No.A/20/2017. 
3. The facts needed to be discussed are as follows:-

The appellant in Appeal No.20/2017 i.e. the opposite party no.2 and the respondent nos.1 & 2-complainants in both the appeals are the full-blooded brothers and they have entered into a business by way of establishing a partnership firm, namely, Joy Chandimata Poles Industry and opened a current bank account in opposite party no.1, the Union Bank of India, Agartala Branch being Account No. 361601010128404. All the three brothers are equal shareholders in the aforesaid firm Joy Chandimata Poles Industry. Appellant and respondent no.1 in Appeal No.22/2017 authorised the respondent-complainant no.2, Sri Abhijit Saha to operate bank account and also to make other correspondences. On 11.05.2016, Sri Abhijit Saha being the attorney of the firm issued cheque for an amount of 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 the aforesaid CD account. On enquiry, the attorney, Sri Abhijit Saha came to learn that the appellant-opposite party no.2, Sri Satyajit Saha, one of the partner raised objection and on the basis of the said objection, the transaction of the account was stopped by the Bank. Thereafter, the two partners i.e. the respondent nos.1 & 2-complainants requested the Manager of the Bank to allow to operate the bank account for running the industry, but the said request was also not allowed. Huge amount was deposited in the bank account, but no amount was allowed to be withdrawn. Thus, the respondent nos.1 & 2, Mr. Biswajit Saha and Mr. Abhijit Saha suffered loss of Rs.19,76,000/- due to the deficiency of service of the bank and filed an application before the Ld. District Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.  

4. Appellant-opposite party no.1, Sri Tapan Bhattacharjee, Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, Agartala Branch appeared and filed written statement denying the claim of the respondent nos.1 & 2 i.e. the complainants. It is submitted that the dispute is not related to consumers at all. More so, Sri Satyajit Saha, the opposite party no.2 revoked the power of attorney as one of the partner. So, the complainant-respondent no.2, Sri Abhijit Saha being the attorney cannot act on behalf of the firm. The Bank Manager also stated that as the dispute between the partners not settled, operation of the bank account was stopped. The Bank requested the partners to resolve their dispute. Thus, there was no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party no.1-Bank. 
5. The appellant in A/20/2017 i.e. the opposite party no.2 in C.C. 81 of 2016 has also appeared and submitted his written statement wherein it has been contended that the respondent-complainant nos.1 & 2 and the appellant-opposite party no.2 are full-blooded brothers and they are running business jointly and severally, but due to some misunderstanding, the disputes arise between them. Beside the present firm ‘Joy Chandimata Poles Industry’ they also run other businesses namely, (i) Joy Chandimata Cold Storage and Agencies Pvt. Ltd. (ii) New Chandimata Traders, (iii) S.R. Construction etc. either in their own name or in the form of partnership. Besides that, there are some landed properties in their joint name or by their forefather. He has also admitted that the power of attorney given to his brother Sri Abhijit Saha, the respondent-complainant no.2 was revoked subsequently due to some misunderstanding. He has further contended that being he is not the consumer of the respondent-complainants, he cannot be made party in the proceeding.
6. On the basis of the contention raised by the parties, the following points were framed by the Ld. District Forum.

1. Whether the O.P. No.2 being the partner has the authority to stop the operation of bank account in the name of firm?
2. 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?

7. The respondent-complainants nos.1 & 2 produced their petition, Production registration, Bank Account Statement, Partnership Agreement, Power of Attorney, Electric bill, Rent for Lease Premises, correspondences, Legal Notices, Statement of Salary. They have also produced the statement on affidavit of Sri Biswajit Saha, Sri Abhijit Saha and Sri Jagadish Das, Manager of Joy Chandimata Poles Industry.
8. The opposite party no.2 on the other hand produced power of attorney, revocation of power of attorney, letter by opposite party no.2 addressing Manager, Union Bank of India, Resolution dated 21.07.2016, letters to the partners by Branch Manager.
9. On the basis of oral evidences as well as documentary evidence on record, the Ld. District Forum passed the impugned judgment.
10. In its findings the Ld. District Forum specifically stated that the “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.” In its findings, it was also stated that “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.”
11. At the time of hearing all the three partners/brothers namely, Sri Biswajit Saha, Sri Abhijit Saha and Sri Satyajit Saha appeared before this Commission along with their Ld. Counsel and the Ld. Counsel for the Bank was also present.
12. Mr. P. Saha, Ld. Counsel for the appellant-opposite party no.1 Bank has contended that the direction of the Consumers Forum in the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside as the Bank was not made party. More so, the Bank is liable to stop the transaction of the current account of the partnership firm as one of the partner raised objection. He has also contended that though a letter was written by all the partners that henceforth all the partners would sign the cheque, but fact remains that no cheque was issued by signing all the partners. Therefore, there is no question of deficiency of service on the part of the Bank.
13. Mr. T. Saha, Ld. Counsel for the respondent-complainants no.1 & 2 and Mr. S. Bhattacharya, Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant-opposite party no.2 have submitted that it would be better to dispose of these appeals modifying the impugned judgment as all the three brothers are agreed to sign the cheques for withdrawal of their respective share keeping an amount of Rs.5,000/- so that the account of the firm can continue. It is also stated that in future, the Bank account would be operated by all the three brothers jointly and the cheques would be signed by all of them. It is also contended that so far the dispute regarding the firm would be decided by them either amicably or before the Court of law as the particular share of the firm is not the subject matter of this proceeding.
14. This Commission has also interacted with all the three brothers and all the three brothers have stated that they are ready to withdraw the amount equally by issuing three cheques separately in the name of three brothers keeping Rs.5,000/- in the account as required. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the Bank has also submitted that they will honor the cheque signed by the three brothers for withdrawal of the amount from their current account in the name of Joy Chandimata Poles Industry keeping Rs.5,000/- in the bank account.
15. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that there was no deficiency in service so far the service of the Bank is concerned. Therefore, Bank is not liable to pay the amount of Rs.15,000/- on deficiency of service as well as Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation awarded by the District Forum. As the matter is amicably settled between the parties, we direct the Bank Manager, Union Bank of India, Agartala Branch, the opposite party no.1 to allow the partners to withdraw money from the current account of the firm through the cheques being No.003586, 003587 and 003588 respectively signed by three partners. It is made clear that if any of the partner is liable to pay any amount to the Bank, the Bank is at liberty to take its own action in accordance with law. It is also made clear that till the partnership firm is resolved by the partners, the aforesaid CD Account will be operated by all the three partners, no individual partner will be allowed to operate the Bank Account till the disposal of the firm. If any amount is to be credited/deposited in the firm account, then the same can be accepted by the Bank Authority.

In the result, the judgment of the Ld. District Forum is modified and both the appeals are allowed to the extent as indicated above. No order as to costs.

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

 

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