Tripura

StateCommission

A/43/2017

Smt. Sukumari Paul - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, Tripura Gramin Bank. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Anjan Kanti Pal

15 Nov 2017

ORDER

Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala.

 

Case No.A.43.2017

 

 

1. Smt. Sukumari Paul,

D/o Late Kedan Chand Paul

C/o Smt. Jaya Debbarma,

Vill: Old Agartala, P.O. Old Agartala,

P.S. Bodhjungnagar, West Tripura.

… … … … … Appellant/Complainant.

 

                Vs

 

1. The Branch Manager,

Tripura Gramin Bank,

Agartala Branch at RMS Chowmuhani,

P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Agartala,

West Tripura.

… … … … … Respondent/Opposite party.

 

 

Present

Mr. Justice U.B. Saha,

President,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

Mrs. SobhanaDatta,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

Mr. Narayan Ch. Sharma,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

For the Respondent:                                      Miss Leena Sarkar, Adv.

Date of Hearing & Delivery of Judgment:     15.11.2017.

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

U.B. Saha, J,

The instant appeal is filed by the appellant, Smt. Sukumari Paul, (hereinafter referred to as complainant) against the order dated 04.07.2017 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, West Tripura, Agartala (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Execution Case No. E.A. 34 of 2016 arising out of Case No. C.C.55 of 2015 whereby and whereunder the learned District Forum passed the following order:-

“04.07.2017: Learned Advocate for D.H. and J.D. appeared. Bank produced the statement of accounts. As per statement maturity value along with savings on the date of renew again fixed deposit interest given. Therefore, further claim of D.H. not tenable in this case. Therefore, execution case stand closed on satisfaction of the claim.”

2. The matter is fixed today for admission hearing.
3. Heard Mr. Anjan Kanti Pal, Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant/complainant as well as Miss Leena Sarkar, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent (hereinafter referred to as opposite party/Gramin Bank).
4. As agreed to by the Ld. Counsel for the parties, the instant appeal is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
5. The appellant is satisfied with the judgment dated 07.05.2016 passed by the learned District Forum, West Tripura, Agartala in Case No. C.C.55 of 2015 wherein the learned District Forum partly allowed the complaint petition filed by the complainant directing the opposite party, Gramin Bank to return the Fixed Deposit to the complainant/petitioner and also to realize the loan amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the complainant without imposing any interest over it and deduction of subsidy amount, if any, as received by the Gramin Bank from the Industry Department or the Government.
6. The learned District Forum also directed the opposite party Bank to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- as compensation to the complainant as she suffered due to deficiency of service of Gramin Bank. As the Gramin Bank did not comply with the aforesaid judgment within two months, the complainant filed an Execution Case being No. E.A. 34 of 2016. On 27.03.2017, the learned District Forum in the Execution Case passed an order, inter alia, that “Complainant is to pay Rs.1,50,000/- to the J.D. and on such payment J.D. shall pay the certificate amount Rs.1,33,000/- with up to date interest on the face value. J.D. is to pay Rs.20,000/- compensation in addition to it. Regarding subsidy. Learned advocate for J.D. informed that no subsidy was received by the Bank. As per judgment subsidy if received from the Khadi Department is to paid to complainant. As it is not received therefore Gramin Bank is not supposed to pay it to the Complainant.” Thereafter, the Execution Case was taken up time to time and on 02.06.2017 judgment debtor submitted the cheque amounting to Rs.1,00,495/- after deduction of Rs.1,50,000/- and also adding compensation of Rs.20,000/-. On 04.07.2017, the learned District Forum passed the order as stated (supra).
7. Hence the appeal.    
8. Mr. Pal, Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant-complainant submits that the complainant has not yet received the cheque as submitted by the judgment debtor Bank. He also submits that the opposite party Bank calculated the interest on the Fixed Deposit lower than the percentage of interest mentioned in the Fixed Deposit certificate.
9. Miss Sarkar, Ld. Counsel submits that on 02.06.2017 the judgment debtor submitted the cheque before the learned District Forum and the learned District Forum on 14.06.2017 directed the office for handing over the cheque to the complainant decree holder, but the complainant decree holder did not receive the same and the cheque is still lying with the District Forum. She further submits that the interest was given @9.25%, 7.50%, 8.50% and 8.50% respectively in four cash certificates and subsequently after reinvestment of the amount the rate of interest was given as applicable at the relevant time, more so the complaint petition was not filed regarding the dispute on the rate of interest in the cash certificate.   
10. We have gone through the relevant cash certificate amount of which was paid by the Bank judgment debtor to the complainant after maturity. We have also gone through the calculation sheet placed by the judgment debtor Bank before the learned District Forum on the basis of which the learned District Forum passed the impugned order dated 04.07.2017 as well as the calculation sheet prepared by the complainant decree holder. It appears that the complainant decree holder claimed interest for the amount deposited by way of cash certificate at the rate of interest mentioned at the time of purchasing the cash certificate which the complainant is not entitled to as after reinvestment of the amount, interest in some cases was decreased and in some cases increased. The Bank Authority calculated and deposited the cheque as per the interest the complainant was entitled to time to time. Therefore, the learned District Forum did not commit any wrong closing the Execution Case on satisfaction of the claim.
11.     In view of the above, we are declined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum. In the result, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit. However, the appellant-complainant is at liberty to withdraw the cheque issued by the judgment debtor Bank which is lying with the learned District Forum.
12.      At this stage, Mr. Pal, Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant-complainant decree holder submits that during the pendency of the appeal, the validity of the cheque issued and submitted by the Bank has already been expired. Thus, the Bank Authority may be asked to revalidate the cheque.   
13. .     Miss Sarkar, Ld. Counsel as well as the judgment debtor Branch Manager, Tripura Gramin Bank, Agartala Branch who appeared in person assured us that if the complainant decree holder after receipt of the cheque from the learned District Forum places the same to the Bank, then the Bank Authority will revalidate the cheque so that the complainant decree holder can get the decretal money.

In view of the above, no direction is called for.

 

 

MEMBER State Commission Tripura

MEMBER State Commission Tripura

PRESIDENT State Commission Tripura