Tripura

StateCommission

A/48/2017

The Managing Director, Tripura State Co-Operative Bank Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri. Nantu Sarkar - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Manoj Debnath, Mr. Gouri Sankar Bhattacharjee

04 Dec 2017

ORDER

Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala.

 

Case No.A.48.2017

 

1. Tripura State Co-operative Bank Ltd.,

Represented by the Managing Director,

Head Office - Post Office Chowmuhani,

Agartala, West Tripura.

 

2. Branch Manager,

Tripura State Co-operative Bank Ltd., 

Battala Branch, Agartala, West Tripura

… … … … … Appellant/Opposite parties.

              

 

1. Sri Nantu Sarkar,

S/o Late Dinesh Chandra Sarkar,

West Pratapgarh, P.O. A.D. Nagar,

West Tripura, Agartala, Pin:799003.

 

2. Smt. Bina Mallik,

W/o Sri Sunil Mallik,

West Pratapgarh, P.O. A.D. Nagar,

West Tripura, Agartala, Pin:799003.

 

3. Sri Manik Sarkar,

S/o Late Dinesh Chandra Sarkar,

West Pratapgarh, P.O. A.D. Nagar,

West Tripura, Agartala, Pin:799003.

… … … … … Respondent/Complainants.

 

Present

Mr. Justice U.B. Saha,

President,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

Mrs. Sobhana Datta,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

Mr. Narayan Ch. Sharma,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

 

 

 

 

For the Appellants:                                          Mr. Manoj Debnath, Adv.

For the Respondents:                                      Mr. Kajal Nandi, Adv.

Date of Hearing & Delivery of Judgment:        04.12.2017.

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

 

 

U.B. Saha, J,

The instant appeal is preferred by the appellants, Tripura State Co-operative Bank Ltd. represented by the Managing Director and the Branch Manager, Tripura State Co-operative Bank Ltd., Battala Branch, Agartala, West Tripura (hereinafter referred to as opposite parties/Bank) against the judgment dated 07.08.2017 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, West Tripura, Agartala (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Case No.C.C.25 of 2017 whereby and whereunder the learned District Forum allowed the complaint petition filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as complainant) and directed that “We therefore, direct the O.P. Bank authority to pay the Fixed Deposit interest as approved rate for pre-matured withdraw up to 2016. Payment is to be made to the nominee as mentioned also done in respect of Fixed Deposit Certificate.” The learned District Forum also awarded an amount of Rs.3,000/- for deficiency of service to pay to the legal representative of the complainant and Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation, in total Rs.5,000/-. Opposite parties-Bank is also directed to pay the interest accrued on the two cash certificates for Rs.7,71,000/- on the approved rate of the Bank for the period  from 01.10.2013 to 01.11.2016. Payment is to be made within two months, if not paid, it will carry interest @ 9% per annum.

2. Heard Mr. Manoj Debnath, Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant-opposite parties as well as Mr. Kajal Nandi, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-complainants (LR of the main complainant).
3. Facts needed to be discussed are as follows:-

Complainant Kamala Sarkar filed a complaint petition before the learned District Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging that she had a SB Account No.6655 in the Tripura State Co-operative Bank, Battala Branch, Agartala of the opposite party no.2. She purchased two cash certificates on 01.10.2013 for an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- and Rs.3,71,000/-, in total Rs.7,71,000/- being C.C.R. A/C No.1331/10633/1 and C.C.R. A/C No.1331/10634/1 respectively. Date of Maturity of those cash certificates was 01.04.2021, rate of interest 9.80%. On 16.09.2016, the complainant along with her son (at present LR) went to the Battala Branch for pre-matured encashment of the certificates. The Branch Manager assured to arrange payment of the amount, but there was delay in payment. So, she made applications on 05.10.2016 to the Branch Manager, the opposite party no.2 and on 01.12.2016 to the Managing Director of the Bank, the opposite party no.1, but the opposite parties neither replied to the application nor had they made payment as she was entitled to. Thus, she claimed the certificate value of the aforesaid two cash certificates and the interest for the deposits for the period from 01.10.2013 to till the payment and also claimed Rs.4 lacs as compensation.

4. The opposite party no.1 and 2 appeared and filed their written statement denying the claim of the complainant. In the written statement it is stated that the complainant never deposited money in fixed deposit scheme by purchasing two certificates. Though, it is admitted by the Bank that on 01.10.2013 complainant wanted to purchase two certificates. She met the Manager and after discussion, the complainant desired to invest the money lying in her SB Account in the Fixed Deposit Scheme. She filled-up the form, but did not deposit Rs.4 lacs and Rs.3,71,000/- for the two certificates. Two cash certificates were written, but as the complainant could not deposit the money from the SB Account by use of cheque, the photocopy of the certificates were handed over to the complainant by the opposite parties-Bank, and she was requested to submit the cheque, but the complainant failed to do so. So, the cash certificates were not activated and the amount was lying in her Savings Account. As the money was not deposited against the Fixed Deposit Certificate, she is not entitled to claim the interest as sought for. Bank is ready to pay the interest as per the rate allowed in Savings Account not as per Fixed Deposit.
5. The learned District Forum considering the pleadings of the respective parties formulated the following points to decide the complaint case:

1. Whether the deposit of cheque was necessary for transferring the amount of Rs.7,71,000/- from the Savings Account of the complainant?
2. Whether there is any deficiency of service and petitioner is entitled to get compensation?

6. Complainant examined herself as P.W.1 by way of statement on affidavit as well as statement on oath and she was also cross-examined by the opposite parties. Complainant also produced Accounts Statement, letter to the Branch Manager, the opposite party no.2 and letter to the Managing Director, Co-operative Bank, the opposite party no.1, photocopy of the Fixed Deposit Certificates and also the pass book issued by the opposite parties-Bank.
7. Opposite parties on the other hand produced the statement on affidavit of one Sunil Debbarma, Branch Manager of Battala Branch of Tripura State Co-operative Bank (opposite party no.2) and one Subal Debbarma, Gr-IV Officer of Tripura State Co-operative Bank, Battala Branch, Agartala.
8. During the pendency of the case before the learned District Forum, the complainant Kamala Sarkar died and in consequent thereto, her son, Nantu Sarkar applied for substitution as a legal representative. Being son was interested to proceed with the case, he was allowed to proceed with the complaint case as LR.
9. After hearing the parties and considering the evidence on record, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint petition as stated (supra).
10. Mr. Debnath, Ld. Counsel appearing for the opposite parties-Bank while urging for setting aside the judgment impugned would contend that the learned District Forum failed to consider the case of the opposite parties while deciding the issues and committed error. He further submits that though initially the cash certificates were issued on the basis of the application of the complainant and copies of the cash certificates were also supplied to her on good faith, but the complainant neither issued any cheque on her Savings Account for issuing the cash certificate, nor had she provided any instructions for transferring the money from her Savings Account. He has produced both cash certificates in original to show that those certificates were cancelled by the Branch Manager of opposite party no.2 as the cheque was not issued to the complainant for the respective amount on Fixeded Deposits. It is further submitted that when the account holder is known to the Bank Authority, sometimes they prepare the cash certificate on good faith even without receiving the money. Mr. Debnath has also submitted that the Managing Director of the opposite parties-Bank was unable to be personally present before this Commission as ordered by this Commission earlier, as he was under treatment at Kolkata and his one kidney and gallbladder were operated.  
11. Mr. Nandi, Ld. Counsel while supporting the impugned judgment submits that the learned District Forum did not commit any wrong when passing the impugned judgment. He has submitted that admittedly when the complainant filled-up the application form for cash/reinvestment certificate specifically mentioned the amount which was to be deducted for Rs.4 lacs and Rs.3,71,000/-, in total Rs.7,71,000/- from her Savings Account No.6655. Therefore, question of issuing any cheque in favour of the Bank for reinvestment of the aforesaid amount in the Fixed Deposit does not arise at all, as alleged by the Bank Authority. He has also submitted that the normal practice and procedure of the Bank is to receive the money first, then to issue the cash certificate, but in the instant case, admittedly the Bank Authority issued the cash certificates and handed over them to the complainant, but did not activate the same as Fixed Deposit Account on the alleged ground of non-issuing of cheque whereas admittedly on 01.10.2013 the balance amount  in her account was Rs.7,72,365/- i.e. more than the amount was to be transferred for C.C.R. Account. He has further contended that a financial institution like the opposite parties-Bank Authority never issued any certificate unless they received the money. Therefore, the contention of the Bank Authority that they were issued the certificate on good faith and subsequently cancelled those certificates for non-issuing of cheque in favour of the Bank is not believable. He has finally contended that non-transfer of money from the Savings Account of the complainant to her Fixed Deposit Account i.e. C.C.R. Account is nothing but the negligence of the opposite parties Bank which amounts to deficiency of service.
12. We have gone through the impugned judgment and the evidence on record. It appears from the Savings Bank Passbook of the complainant that she has withdrawn Rs.1,80,000/- and Rs.20,30,000/- i.e. in total Rs.22,10,000/- on 19.12.2015 and in her account only Rs.861/- remained. Therefore, according to us, the complainant is entitled to get the interest as per approved rate for premature withdrawal, not @9.80% against those cash certificates up to 18.12.2015, not up to 01.11.2016 as ordered by the learned District Forum.
13. We have also gone through the application forms for cash/reinvestment certificate filled-up by the complainant on 01.10.2013 wherein she specifically mentioned the Savings Account No.6655 and the Branch Manager of the opposite party-Bank Authority also signed that form and not only that they have also issued the cash certificate photocopy which was also produced by the complainant before the learned District Forum and according to her, the original cash certificate was handed over by her to the Bank Authority on 16.09.2016, but in the cash certificate, the Bank Authority though endorsed cancelled, but no date is mentioned as to when the cash certificate was cancelled. Such an action of the opposite parties-Bank Authority creates a doubt in our mind regarding the action taken by the opposite parties Bank Authority. A Financial Institution like the opposite parties-Bank how prepared a cash certificate without receiving/transferring the money from the Savings Account of the complainant when admittedly in her account an amount of Rs.7,72,365/- was available i.e. more than the amount mentioned in the application forms for Fixed Deposit. The plea of the opposite parties-Bank Authority that for non-issuance of cheque they did not activate C.C.R. Account is not believable and not only that, the Bank Authority also did not reply to the applications filed by the complainant addressing to the opposite parties which also creates suspicions regarding the act of the opposite parties-Bank Authority. It was the duty of the Bank Authority to transfer the amount mentioned in the application form from Savings Account to C.C.R. Account and non-transferring and non-activating the C.C.R. Account is obviously a negligence of the Bank Authority and thus it is a deficiency of service to an account holder/consumer of the Bank.
14. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the opposite parties Bank Authority is liable to pay the cash certificate interest (Fixed Deposit) as per approved rate for prematured withdrawal from 01.10.2013 to 18.12.2015 minus the interest already paid to the complainant on the amount on her account lying with the Savings Account through her nominee and LR who is at present respondent in the instant appeal for deficiency of service, not the interest for premature withdrawal up to 2016 as ordered by the learned District Forum as petitioner admittedly withdrew almost the entire amount from her Savings Account keeping only Rs.861/- on 19.12.2015.
15. The learned District Forum rightly allowed Rs.3,000/- for deficiency of service and Rs.2,000/- towards costs of litigation. Therefore, the opposite party Bank is liable to pay the aforesaid amount of Rs.3,000/- + Rs.2,000/-, in total Rs.5,000/- for deficiency of service and cost of litigation. Opposite parties-Bank is also at liberty to deduct the amount on account of tax to be deducted at source on the interest accrued. Payment is to be made within two months from today and if not paid within the aforesaid period, then the amounts entitled by the complainant will carry interest @9% per annum.

With the aforesaid modification of the impugned judgment, the appeal is partly allowed. 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