BEFORE

              District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,

               Kamalpur, District:- Dhalai, Tripura

                      Case No. 03/CC/KMP of 2021

 SMT. LAXMI GHOSH (GOPE)

 W/O.Sri. Satya Ranjan Gope,

 Village:- Noagaon, P.S:-Kamalpur, P.O:- Kamalpur,

 District:- Dhalai, Tripura. 799285..........………Complainant.

                                   V/S

THE BRANCH MANAGER, TRIPURA GRAMIN BANK,

Kamalpur Branch, Dhalai Tripura.................Respondent.

                                      Present

       SRI. SURYA DEO SINGH.......... President,

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kamalpur, District:- Dhalai, Tripura

1.  SRI. HIRALAL DEBBARMA………Member

2.  SMT. DIPALI SINHA..........................Member

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kamalpur, District:- Dhalai, Tripura

                      LD. C O U N S E L S

For the Complainant       : Ld. Advocate Sri.Arup Bhawal.

For the Opposite Party    : Ld. Advocate Sri.Sanjib Kr. Deb.    

Date of argument: 23.09.2022  

Date of judgment: 08.11.2022    

J U D G M E N T

1.       The instant case was instituted on the basis of complaint filed by Smt. Laxmi Ghosh (Gope), W/o. Sri Satya Ranjan Gope of Vill- Noagaon, PO+PS- Kamalpur, District- Dhalai Tripura against the Tripura Gramin Bank, Kamalpur Branch for compensation amounting to Rs. 1,01,559/- (one lakh one thousand five hundred fifty nine only).

2.       The brief facts of the Complainant case is that she is a permanent resident of Village- Noagaon, P.S.– Kamalpur, District- Dhalai, Tripura. On 26.03.2014 complainant opened a R. D. Account vide No. 8095142508694 at Kamalpur Gramin Bank for the term of six years three months and installment amount is fixed at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per month which is to be debited from the saving account of complainant lying in the said Bank as per the instruction and consent of complainant.

   On 26.06.2020 the said R. D. Account has been matured. It was supposed that total deposit amount of R. D  is to be Rs. 75,000/- and the  maturity value against the said R. D,  A/C with interest is supposed to be Rs. 1,01,559/-( one lakh one thousand five hundred fifty nine only) in the said period.

   On 23.07.2020 complainant communicated with the bank authority alongwith all relevant documents for getting the maturity value against the said R.D, A/C,  then Bank authority informed the complainant  that maturity value is Rs. 90,041/-(Ninety thousand and forty one only) instead of Rs. 1,01,559 (one lakh one thousand five hundred fifty nine only). Complainant asked the reason for the shortfall, the bank authority told the complainant that eleven installments have accumulated less.           

           On 27.07.2020 when Bank authority transferred the maturity value in the complainant savings account, where it is reflected that  maturity value is Rs.   56,601/- ( fifty six thousand sixty hundred one)  instead of Rs. 90,041/- (Ninety thousand and forty one ).

      It is further case of the complainant that  she was supposed to get maturity value amounting to  Rs. 1,01,559/- (one lakh one thousand five hundred fifty nine only) against the said R. D, A/C  though the complainant suffered loss amounting to Rs. 45,458 ( forty five thousand four hundred fifty eight only).  On being asked by the complainant the reason for the shortfall  amount of Rs. 45,458/- ( forty five thousand four hundred fifty eight only),  bank authority could  not give any reasonable answer. As a result complainant is  mentally disturbed and as such she claimed maturity value of Rs.1,01,559/- (one lakh one thousand five hundred fifty nine only).

3.            On the Other hand, OP appeared and contested the case by way of filing written reply. In the written reply, the OP stated that the present complaint filed by complainant is not maintainable in its present form and nature, barred by limitation, estoppel, waiver  and acquiescence, no cause of action arose and the complaint has been filed for only to harass the OP. In the written reply it is stated by OP that on 26.03.2014, the complainant had opened a Recurring Deposit Account (herein after called RD Account) vide Account No. 8095142508694 with OP- Bank with a view that, the complainant would deposit @ Rs. 1,000/- into her said RD Account for a period of 75 (seventy five) months against interest @ Rs. 9.25% p.a and in that respect, the complainant has given a Standing Instruction to the O.P- Bank into the effect that “ Please debit monthly installment of RD account from my Savings Bank Account No.  8095012105766”. The Bank has complied with the instruction of the Complainant and debited Rs. 1,000/- from her saving account vide no. 8095102105766 and deposited into the RD Account vide No. 8095142508694 initially w.e.f. 26.03.2014 to 26.11.2014 consecutive 9(nine) installments under Transaction vide No. TR 201770. Thereafter, the O.P-Bank could not collect the required amount from her savings account to deposit the same into the RD Account, since, there was no sufficient amount to comply with her instruction. It is further contended that on perusal of the savings account statement vide No.  8095102105766, it is revealed that the said account was in dormant (i.e non-operative mode) for few months and for that reason dormant charge was debited from the said savings account. On getting sufficient balance in the savings account of the Complainant after elapsing of 44 (forty Four) months (i.e December, 2014 to July,2018 ) the O.P-Bank was able to deduct again Rs. 11,000/- (Eleven Thousand only ) on 07.08.2018 as installment for eleven months only at a time and subsequently on 19.09.2018 amounting to Rs. 1,000/- for another one month. Thereafter, again complainant savings account was under balance w.e.f October, 2018 to December 2018 and for that reason the Bank could not comply her standing instruction. On elapsing of again three months, the complainant deposited some amount into the savings account phase wise and the O.P-Bank has deducted the amount from the savings account as and when available and deposited the same into the RD Account w.e.f. 07.08.2018 to 19.06.2020 in a phase manner. As a result, finally, the said RD Account was matured on 26.06.2020 with a shortage of Rs. 11,000/- (eleven thousand only) to be deposited.  It is also contended that the saving account was very irregular.

   It is further contended by OP that on perusal of RD Account statement of the complainant as submitted in page 7 to 9 along with the complaint, it is revealed that the matured value was Rs. 90,041/- (Ninety thousand and forty one only) instead of  Rs. 1,01,559/- (one lakh one thousand five hundred fifty nine only) against depositing of Rs. 64,000/-(Sixty four thousand only ) into the said RD Account and on perusal the savings account statement it is again revealed that the complainant got the maturity value amounting to Rs. 56,601/- instead of Rs. 90,041/-.  This was happened due to charging of penal interest for non-depositing the respective installment into the RD Account. The Bank could not deduct the required installment from the savings account due to insufficient balance in the same and as a result, the respective monthly installment, which was supposed to be deposited into the RD Account of the complainant, was not done in time. Therefore, in the event of an installment falling arrears a penal interest was charged on the installment or installments in arrears at the scheduled rate for the period of default and the panel amount was recovered at the time of maturity of the Recurring Deposit Account of the complainant. 

4.                Issues / Points to be determined

i) Whether the Complainant is  Consumer or  not? 

ii) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form and nature?  

iii) Whether is there any deficiency in service on the pat of the Tripura Gramin Bank, Kamalpur Branch regarding maintaining RD Account of Smt. Laxmi Ghosh?

iv) Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation for the deficiency in service on the part of T.G.B  Kamlpur Branch?

v) Whether the complainant is entitled to any other  relief or reliefs?

5.                     Evidence adduced by parties

         Complainant  examined herself as PW 1 and produced one witness namely    Sri Satya Ranjan Gope who was examined as PW 2 and witness were cross examined accordingly. Complainant submitted some documents which were marked as Exhibits which are as follows:

i) Exhibit-1 series:-  RD Account vide No. 8095142508694  for the period 26.03.2018 to 23.07.2020 ( 3 pages).

ii) Exhibit-2: - Photocopy of RD A/C Passbook in the name of complainant.

iii) Exhibit-3 series:- Photocopy of saving A/C Passbook vide No.  8095102105766, ( 6 pages).

iv) Exhibit-4:-  Letter issued by TGB to the complaint dated 20.03.2020.

v) Exhibit-5:- Letter addressed to the Manager, TGB, Kamalpur Branch dt. 09.02.2021.

    During the proceeding, OP produced one witness who was examined as DW 1 and he was accordingly cross examined.

   The OP also submitted some documents which  have been marked as Exhibit which are as follows:-

i) Exhibit-A:- Account opening form in the name of  the complainant  dated 26.03.2014  (9 pages).

ii) Exhibit-B:-Statement of saving account vide No. 8095012105766.  (12 pages).

iii) Exhibit-C:- Statement of RD account vide no. 8095142508694.  (8 pages).

OP also submitted photocopy of Manual of instruction, TGB.

6. The complainant verbally concluded argument and OP filed written argument.

7.          Point  No-(i) & (ii) are  taken together for discussion and decision

          In the instant  complaint case, it is not disputed that the complainant is not a consumer of OP TGB, Kamalpur Branch and it is also not disputed that this commission has no jurisdiction to entertain  the complaint of the complainant. Hence this facts are admitted facts as reflected from the pleading of the parties. However, we found  the materials  of Section 2(7) and section 34 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 and the complaint has been rightly instituted within 2 years of arising of cause of action which is not beyond the purview of Section 69 of consumer Protection Act, 2019, Hence, the Point No. (i) & (ii) are decided accordingly.

8.   Point  No-(iii), (iv) & (v) are  taken together for discussion and decision

        As it is emerged  from the pleading of the parties, the main contention of dispute in controversy is that the complainant opened a RD, A/C vide No.  8095142508694 dated 26.03.2014 for a period of 6 years 3 months for monthly recurring deposit of Rs. 1,000/- ( One thousand only) per month and the complainant was supposed to deposit Rs. 75000/- (Seventy five thousand only) and after maturity she was supposed to get an amount of 1,01,559/- (one lakh one thousand five hundred fifty nine only)and said amount of recurring deposit is to be automatically credited to RD Account from the savings bank A/C of the complainant already maintained in the said Bank vide Saving A/C No. 80950121105766. During cross examination the complainant admitted that eleven installment remain insufficient in her RD A/C.

     She also admitted that her phone No. is linked with savings account. She further admitted that she put her signature in RD A/C but it content was read over by PW 2 (her husband) and she does not know the rules of default charges of Bank. During cross examination PW2, the husband of the complainant stated that the form of RD A/C was filled up by Bank personnel and they informed that in case of deficiency of fund, he will be informed over phone or through letter.

      We have carefully gone through the Exhibit-1 series, Exhibit -2,  Exhibit-3 series,  Exhibit-4  &  Exhibit- 5 and found that the  complainant did not maintain balance in her savings A/C so that the Rs. 1,000/- per month could not be credited  in RD A/C and an amount of Rs. 64,000/- only could be deposited in her RD A/C.  Eleven installment falls short of seventy five installment. Bank authority, after taking into consideration the penalty charges, offered her an amount of Rs. 56,601/- i.e Rs. 7399/- less of her deposited money i.e Rs. 64000/- (Sixty four thousand only). From both sides correspondence were exchanged regarding the claim of the  complaint and payment of money after expiry of 6 years  3 months by the Bank authority (OP).

   We have carefully gone through the deposition of DW 1, Sri Sailesh Chandra Debnath, Branch Manager, TGB, Kamalpur Branch, Tripura. DW 1 admitted in his cross examination that at the time of opening account, they understand the customer at which place they have to put signature and simultaneously he admitted  that there are tick mark in the Account opening form of complainant where she had to put signature. He also admitted that they did not inform the RD customer holder for non deduction of Rs. 1,000/- from her savings account in writing since after 26.11.2014. He also admitted that they do not make aware and understand the customer unless they specially  ask for it.

     He also admitted that they did not inform the RD customer holder of the penalty charges for non deduction of Rs. 1,000/- since after the  month of December 2014.

    We have gone through the Exhibit-A,B and C and manual instruction of TGB submitted by DW 1.

    It is reflected from the said exhibits that the complainant defaulted in making payment in savings Bank Account from which Rs. 1,000/- is supposed to be credited in RD Account and she put her signature where there is already a tick mark whereby it is mentioned that “ I/We agreed to be bound by the Banker’s rules and regulation governing  R.D account from time to time.”

    “I/we will maintain minimum balance in the account and on the event to fall in the minimum balance the Bank may realize the service charge (exhibit -A).”

    It also reveals that the complainant defaulted in making payment of 10^th installment for the month of December 2014 and subsequently there was no minimum balance in between December 2014 to 28.02.2018 and no balance upto mark in between 07.02.2013 to 06.08.2018 in the savings account of the complainant. Before maturity period, the complainant deposited only 64 installments instead of 75 installments i.e 11 installments fallen short in RD Account.

    By depositing Rs. 64,000/- the complainant was supposed to get Rs. 90041/- but  Bank authority offered her Rs. 56601/- instead of Rs. 90041/-citing reasons of incurring of penal charges, interest and other charges.

   We have gone through the manual instruction of TGB wherein the provision 8(d) provides that the instalments are payable on any day during the month either in cash or by a self drawn cheque. Instalments may also be debited against prescribed service charge to the depositor’s account under standing instruction to that effect. In the latter case, the pass book shall be called for periodically, made up to date and returned to the depositor.

 Further provision 14(b) provides that penal interest in respect of delayed/defaulting instalment(s)  may be waived by the branch against deposit of equal number of advance instalments.

  On the appreciation of evidence of pleading of both sides including documents (exhibits), it is found that it is admitted facts that the complainant defaulted in depositing Rs. 1000/- per month in her SB A/C from where the said amount supposed to be credited in RD account and as such it fallen short of eleven installment and complainant deposited only Rs. 64,000/- and she was expecting a payment of Rs. 90041/- but the Bank authority offered her Rs. 56101/- instead of Rs. 90041/-.

9.        During argument Ld. Counsel for the OP argued that complainant voluntarily agreed to the terms and condition of rules and she put her signature in RD Account opening from and later on she violated the terms and condition and so a penal charges was according imposed Ld. Counsel relied upon Section 37,40, & 73 of Indian Contract Act, 1872.

      On the contrary Ld. Counsel for complainant argued that complainant was not aware about penal charges and she was not informed regularly about her minimum balance in her  savings account which resulted in non deduction of Rs. 1,000/- per month in her RD Account.

       Now after appreciation of evidence on record it appears  that OP is duty bound to disclose the consequences of default in making regular payment in RD Account since after its opening to the customer as well as the amount of  penal charges must be intimated to customer. Had the complainant  aware of consequences of making default in regular payment in detail, she obviously would not had defaulted in payment. The OP is duty bound to discharge his obligation in details to the complainant. At the same time complainant has a duty to know and understand the consequences of making  default in regular payment. 

    Further it has not been in record whether the manual of instruction of TGB was provided to customer or not. Mere signing document without knowing and understanding the contents does not amount to acceptance  of agreement.

10.              Considering the facts and circumstances as placed before us we are of the considered opinion that petitioner/ complainant is entitled to get back her deposited amount of Rs. 64,000/- (Sixty four thousand only) instead of Rs. 56,601/- (fifty six thousand six hundred one only) and also entitled to get Rs. 5000/- as a litigation cost.

11.            We therefore direct the OP, Tripura Gramin Bank, Kamalpur Branch to pay Rs. 64,000/- (Sixty four thousand only) to the complainant, the deposited amount in RD Account vide No. 8095142508694 alongwith Rs. 5000/- litigation cost within two months of this order otherwise it will carry an interest of 11% per anum.

12.              It is pertinent to mention here that inadvertently the complaint was registered on 01.07.2021 U/S 12 of  Consumer Protection Act, 1986, instead of New Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which came into effect on 20.07.2020.

13.          Supply copy of Judgment to the parties free of cost.

14.          The case is thus disposed of on contest.

15.          Make necessary entry in the relevant register.

           (DIPALI SINHA)           (H.L. DEBBARMA)           (S. DEO SINGH)