DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 39 of 2017

 

Smt. Dulali Das,

W/o- Late Bijoy Kumar Das,

Matripalli, Badharghat,

Agartala, West Tripura. .......…...Complainant.

 

         VERSUS

 

     1. The Tripura Gramin Bank,

Represented by 

The General Manager,

Tripura Gramin Bank,

Head Office,

P.O. Abhoynagar,

Tripura.

 

     2. The Branch Manager,

Tripura Gramin Bank,

Badharghat Branch,

Badharghat, Tripura. .........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 : Smt. Paramita Dhar,

 Sri Herojit Debbarma,

 Sri Aneek Choudhury,

 Advocates.

 

For the O.Ps : Sri Amitabha Ray Barman.

 Sri Miss Leena Sarkar,

 Advocates.

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:   18.07.2017.

 

 

J U D G M E N T

This case arises on the petition filed U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. Petitioner's case in short is that she being 62 years old through her son deposited Rs.1 lac in cash in the Gramin Bank under reinvestment plan. Accordingly certificate was issued by respondent No.2. On that date complainant again transferred Rs.1 lac from the CC bank account and purchased certificate for Rs.1 lac. After expiry of 12 months the certificates were repayable in the interest rate of Rs.9.25%. Time to time the certificate was reinvested by the officials of respondents no.2. In the month of April, 2016 complainant was in need of cash for her son's marriage. So she wanted to encash the certificate. But respondent no.2, manager of the bank deferred the encashment. There after it was told that there was no record in regard of cash  deposit of Rs.1 lac. Cash deposit slip for Rs.1 lac was fake. On that ground respondent no.2, bank manager did not encash the amount of Rs.1 lac. Respondent claimed that manually  prepared certificate was not recorded and it was fraudulent. Petitioner claimed that it was genuine one and want to get the interest. Proper service was not given and she claimed compensation. 

 

2. O.P. appeared, filed W.S denying the claim. It is contended that the bank without verifying the record handed over the computer generated reinvestment certificate to the complainant. Complainant illegally claimed both the certificate money. There was no record of cash deposit of Rs.1 lac. So petitioner is not entitled to get any amount on the fake certificate. 

 

3. On the basis of contention raised by both the parties following points cropped up for determination:

  (I) Whether petitioner deposited cash amount of Rs.1 lac and again transferred Rs.1 lac from her SB account for opening 2 reinvestment certificates?

(II) Whether the O.P. has deficiency of service by not paying the amount of the certificates and petitioner is entitled to get compensation?

 

4. Petitioner side produced the photocopy of certificates, copy of SB Account Pass Book, letters of the complainant to the Branch Manager, letter of the Branch Manager to the complainant, cash deposit slip dt. 23.07.12, cash deposit slip dt. 10.07.14, 13.11.2009, 22.01.2010, 09.06.10, 21.08.2010, legal Notice, communication dt. 23.09.2016.

 

5. Petitioner also produced the statement on affidavit of one witness, Ram Gopal Das who represented the complainant after her death. Statement on affidavit of Dulali Das also produced. 

 

6. O.P. on the other hand produced copy of SB certificate, copy of deposit slip, copy of vigilance department report, copy of letter issued by Branch Manager, copy of cash receipt on 23.07.12, copy of receipt dated 23.07.12, computer generated account statement of the complainant against savings account.

7. O.P. also produced the statement on affidavit of Krishnapada Banik, Branch Manager of Tripura Gramin Bank. 

 

8. On the basis of  evidence before us we shall now determine the above points.

 

Findings and decision;

9. We have gone through the 2 certificates issued on the same date 23.07.12. Certificate number is different but account number and amount of investment in both certificates are found same. Certificate was renewed. Manually prepared certificate was renewed on 2 dates maturity value shown Rs.1,43,178/- on 23.07.16. Computer generated certificate was renewed 3 times for the same amount. Tripura Gramin Bank, Badharghat Branch denied encashment of Rs.1 lac against manually prepared certificate on the ground that cash deposit record not available  and cash deposit is fake. A/C number of two certificates also same which was done by mistake. Letter was issued on 08.08.16 asking the complainant Dulali Das to surrender the certificate. The cash deposit slip clearly bears the signature of the depositor and seal of the bank. Several other cash deposit slip is also produced from the year 2009 to 2014. The cash deposit slip appears to be similar to those slip submitted. How the O.P. respondent claimed it fake not clarified. Matter was investigated by the Gramin Bank, Vigilance Department.  One Pradip Chaudhury, Enquiry officer has given name of 4 staffs working in the branch that day. Lastly  he came to the findings that there was no record of cash deposit amounting to Rs.1 lac. So counterfoil of the deposit slip is found fake and manipulated. One certificate  manually and another by system was supplied by mistake. Who committed such mistake was not clarified by him. As record not available for cash deposit, so he considered the deposit slip fake and manipulated. No other reason assigned by the investigator. Relying on the report of this investigator Gramin Bank authority came to the findings that the counterfoil was fake and manipulated. No criminal case was filed for this manipulation or forgery. The documents was not chemically examined for determination that it was a fake one. There is no expert opinion to support this findings. 

 

10. In the written statement Gramin Bank respondent stated that complainant requested for fixed deposit of Rs.1 lac by debiting from her account. On that date one hand written certificate was handed over to Dulali Das. Subsequently the complainant requested Bank for providing certificate by system so computer generated certificate was issued for the complainant by mistake. So, there is no dispute on the matter of computer generated certificate for Rs.1 lac which amount was transferred from her SB account. Dispute is over the cash deposit. Petitioner produced the counterfoil of the cash deposit slip. Amount of Rs.1 lac in cash was deposited by his son Ram Gopal Das. And accordingly cash deposit certificate manually prepared was handed over. There after 2 times it was renewed. No question raised by Bank officials for about 3 years. After the lapse of 4 years it was stated that Rs. 1 lac was not deposited by cash and cash deposit slip is fake one. The investigator could not detect the official who was responsible for this negligence if any. It may so happen that official may manipulate or did not deposit the amount and supplied the manually prepared certificate without entering the cash into the system. There is no place for presumption and assumption. The O.P. respondent Bank could file definite complaint before the investigating agency police for detection of crime in respect of preparation of fake deposit slip but it was no done. 

 

11. Learned advocate for the petitioner referred the decision of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum vide no. 2007 CPJ 221 NC in the case of Allahabad Bank VS Shiv Swarup Shrivastav. In that case bank was made vicariously liable for the misappropriation by bank staff. In this case misappropriation of bank staff not proved, but clear negligence of the staff comes out from the evidence. Without receiving back certificate manually prepared how another certificate (computer generated) copy issued from the system can not be understood by us. Account number is written same in the 2 certificates and year after year certificates were reinvested without any detection. The cash deposit slip counterfoil is not proved fake in this case. On the other hand the transfer of Rs.1 lac from the account is admitted and proved by documents. Therefore we consider that petitioner paid Rs.1 lac in cash and also paid Rs.1 lac from her SB account on the same date. The contention of O.P. Gramin Bank that deposit slip of cash Rs.1 lac fake is not proved by convincing evidence. The deficiency of service by Tripura Gramin Bank is clearly found in this case. We therefore direct the O.P. Branch Manager Tripura Gramin Bank to arrange the encashment of 2 certificates with matured value and also pay her compensation amounting to Rs.10,000/- for the deficiency of service and Rs. 5,000/- for cost of litigation. Both the points are decided accordingly.

 

12. In view of our above findings we direct the O.P. to arrange the encashment of 2 certificates and pay the maturity value with accrued interest and also Rs.15,000/- for deficiency of service and litigation cost. Order is to be complied and payment is to made within one month, if not complied it will carry interest @ 9% P.A. 

           

 

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.