DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM

WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

 

 

CASE NO:  CC - 77 of   2017

 

 

      Smt. Sheli Choudhury,

W/O- Lt. Subir Roy Choudhury,

Hospital Road Extension ,

Gandhighat, Agartala,

Tripura(West)- 799001. ….…...Complainant.

 

 

         VERSUS

 

      1. The Chairman,

Tripura Gramin Bank,

Abhoynagar, Agartala, West Tripura,

 

      2. Tripura Gramin Bank,

To be Represented by the Branch Manager,

Dhaleswar Branch, Agartala,

Pin- 799001. ............ 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 Complainant : Sri Koushik Nath,

  Advocate.

 

For the O.Ps : Sri Tapan Kumar Modak,

  Advocate.

  

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:  12.12.2017.

 

 

J U D G M E N T

This case arises on the petition filed by one Sheli Roy Choudhury U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. Petitioner's case in short is that her husband Subir Roy Choudhury had taken loan from Tripura Gramin Bank, Dhaleswar Branch. He died on 16.06.15. The loan was covered by Insurance of LICI. But the bank listed the name as defaulter and realised the amount from his outstanding salary and other benefits to be received from the employer. In the meantime LICI paid the loan amount  with interest to the Tripura Gramin Bank. O.P. then paid the petitioner the nominee of her husband but after deduction of some amount. For such deficiency of service she suffered. So, she claimed interest over Rs.1,86,560/- with effect from 30.12.15 and Rs.50,000/- as compensation and litigation cost.

 

2. O.P. Gramin Bank appeared, filed written statement denying the claim. It is stated that the lonee i.e., the husband of the petitioner  promised to repay the loan from his salary bill. Accordingly on the death of loanee Gramin Bank authority realized the loan amount of Rs.1,86,560/-. The outstanding loan amount increased from Rs.1,86,560/- to 2,02,423/-. So, outstanding balance increased to Rs.17,255/- and Gramin Bank recovered the amount. There was no deficiency or fault by the Gramin Bank. 

 

3. On the basis of contention raised by the petition and the O.P. following points cropped up for determination:

(I) Whether the realisation of the amount from the employer on the death of the husband of the petitioner was proper?

(II) Whether there was deficiency of service by the O.P. and petitioner is entitled to get compensation?

 

4. Petitioner produced the loan application form, letters, loan Statement, also the statement of affidavit of Sheli Roy Choudhury. Petitioner also produced the Sanction Memo, Letter, Death Certificate of Subir Roy Choudhury, Survival certificate.

 

5. O.P. on the other hand produced the Loan documents, DDO Certificate, letters by Branch Manager, Tripura Gramin Bank, Exhibit - A series. 

 

6. On the basis of all these evidences we shall now determine the above points.

 

Findings and decision:

7. From the letters of DDO, Khadi & Village Industry  it is found that Rs.1,86,560/- was realized from the salary and other benefits of the deceased on 30st December 2015. The loanee husband of the petitioner died on 16.06.15. It is admitted position that the loan was covered by insurance. Gramin Bank authority was aware that in case of death of loanee the amount of loan along with interest will be paid by LICI and for that premium was paid to LICI. Knowing fully Gramin Bank authority wrote letter to the DDO of loanee for realization of the outstanding amount of Rs.1,86,560/- and realized it. From the account it is found that after death even the interest was counted. The loan account was not closed after receiving Rs.1,86,560/-. The outstanding loan was shown Rs.2,02,423/- on 31.12.15. Thereafter the amount was realized as the LICI paid the loan amount with interest. It is admitted that after realization of the amount with interest again some amount was claimed showing outstanding. Generally after death of the loaneee loan account should have been closed. The amount  of outstanding was realized but thereafter the loan account was not closed. For making delay in payment LICI have paid the interest. After receiving the LICI amount Gramin Bank authority did not close the loan account. 

 

8. From the sanction letter and other related papers  as produced before us it is clear that the bank authority realized the amount from the death benefit of the deceased loanee. Due to such the nominee, Sheli Roy Choudhury along with her minor son and daughter a aged mother of the deceased faced troubles. They are in need of money at that time but the Gramin Bank realized the amount from the employer knowing fully that the amount of the loan will be paid by the LICI as the loan was covered by policy. The amount was shown Rs.2,02,423/- on 06.01.16. The loanee died on 16.06.15. But the interest continued even on payment of Rs.1,86,560/-. Rs.1,83,385/- remitted to the account of the complainant Sheli Roy Choudhury on 27.06.16 after receipt of Rs.2,00640/- from LICI. LICI counted interest and paid Rs.2,00640/- but the bank authority  continued  the account  with interest. This activity of the bank authority appears to be deficiency of service as on death loan should not have been realised from death benefit. For that deficiency of service Petitioner suffered. We therefore have come to the views that this realisation of the loan amount of Rs.1,86,000/- from the employer of the deceased was uncalled for as the loan was covered by LICI  and paid by LICI with interest as  such petitioner is entitled to get back Rs.1,86,560/- with interest @9% P.A. From 30.12.15 the date of payment, out of that Rs.1,83,000/- is paid on 27.06.16. so from 27.06.16 no interest will be counted on Rs.1,86,385/- after such calculation of the interest amount of interest is to be paid to the petitioner within 2 months. For the deficiency of service O.P. is to  pay additional Rs.15,000/- and Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost total Rs.20,000/-. Direct the O.P. to pay interest over Rs.1,86,560/- @9% P.A. from 30.12.15 to 27.07.16 and the rest amount till payment along with Rs.20,000/- as compensation and litigation cost. Amount is to paid within 2 months. 

 

Announced.

 

 

 

 

 

SRI A. PAL

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

 

 

SRI  U. DAS

MEMBER,

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM, 

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA