Tripura

StateCommission

A/29/2019

Smt. Amrita Sarkar(Ghosh) - Complainant(s)

Versus

United Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Bimal Kanti Nath

18 Jan 2020

ORDER

Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala.

 

Case No.A.29.2019

 

 

1. Smt. Amrita Sarkar (Ghosh),
   W/o Sri Pinaki Ghosh.

 

2. Sri Samir Ghosh,
   S/o Late Gour Netai Ghosh.

 

Both are the residents of:

Ramkrishna Palli, ITI Road,
P.O. Kujaban, P.S. New Capital Complex,
Agartala, District - West Tripura. 

… … … … Appellants/Complainants.

 

•  

 

1. United Bank of India,

Regional Office, Tripura

Represented by its DGM & Chief Regional Manager,

Durgabari Road, P.O. Agartala,

P.S. West Agartala, District – West Tripura.

 

2. United Bank of India,

G.B. Hospital Branch,

Represented by its Branch Manager,
P.O. Kujaban, P.S. New Capital Complex,
Agartala, West Tripura.

… … … … Respondents/Opposite Parties.

 

Present

 

Hon’ble Mr. Justice U.B. Saha,

President,

State Commission

 

Dr Chhanda Bhattacharyya,

Member,

State Commission

 

Mr. Kamalendu Bikash Das,

Member,

State Commission

 

For the Appellants:                                        Mr. Bimal Kanti Nath, Adv.    

For the Respondents:                                    Mr. Amitabha Roy Barman, Adv.

Date of Hearing:                                            21.12.2019.

Date of Delivery of Judgment:                      18.01.2020.

J U D G M E N T

U.B. Saha, J,

The instant appeal is filed by the appellants, Smt. Amrita Sarkar (Ghosh) and Sri Samir Ghosh against the judgment dated 13.09.2019 passed by the learned District Consumers Disputes Redressal Forum, West Tripura, Agartala (hereinafter referred to as District Forum), in Case No. C.C.85 of 2018 whereby and whereunder the learned District Forum directed both the opposite parties, the respondents herein, to pay Rs.8,000/- as compensation and Rs.4,000/- as costs of litigation i.e. in total Rs.12,000/- to the complainants, the appellant herein, within a period of two months from the date of judgment, failing which, the amount shall carry interest @9% per annum till the payment is made in full.  It is also mentioned in the impugned judgment that after compliance of the above direction, both the opposite parties are at liberty to recover the remaining amount of Rs.67,000/- from the complainants within two months after observing all legal formalities.

2. Heard Mr. Bimal Kanti Nath, Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellants (hereinafter referred to as complainants) as well as Mr. Amitabha Roy Barman, Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondents (hereinafter referred to as opposite parties/UBI/Bank).
3. Facts needed to be discussed are as follows:-

Before filing the present complaint petition, the complainants filed another complaint petition before the learned District Forum, which was registered as Complaint Case No.C.C.90 of 2016 regarding dishonoring of cheque by the opposite parties-UBI, which was issued by another complainant, Sri Samir Ghosh, and the said case was ended by a judgment dated 17.05.2018 passed by the learned District Forum, West Tripura, Agartala and thereafter, the complainants filed the present complaint petition alleging that the opposite party no.2, United Bank of India, G.B. Hospital Branch has illegally deducted Rs.1,08,000/- from the joint account of the complainants without any prior notice and after deduction of the said amount, the opposite party no.2 informed the complainants regarding said deduction.

Being aggrieved by the action of the opposite party no.2, the complainants served the Advocate's Notice upon the opposite parties-UBI to refund the aforesaid amount or to deposit the amount of Rs.1,08,000/- in the joint account of them, but the opposite parties did not take any action in response to the said legal notice of the complainants and finally, the complainants have filed the instant complaint petition before the learned District Forum claiming refund of Rs.1,08,000/- which was illegally deducted and also Rs.50,000/- as compensation and in addition, Rs.30,000/- for suffering harassment and mental agony and Rs.20,000/- towards cost of litigation.

4. Opposite parties-UBI appeared and filed their written statement denying and disputing the claim of the complainants. In the written statement, it is stated that the subsidy amount of Rs.1,75,000/- was credited in the account of the complainant Smt. Amrita Sarkar (Ghosh) and thereafter the said amount was transferred to her loan account on 20.07.2012. Subsequently, on 20.07.2015, the subsidy amount of Rs.1,75,000/- with interest amounting to Rs.1,76,891.36 was again wrongly credited in the bank account of the complainant Smt. Amrita Sarkar (Ghosh). According to the opposite parties, it has credited second time and entry of the subsidy amount of Rs.1,76,891.36 on 27.07.2015 was due to mistake which was detected subsequently by the opposite parties-Bank and the matter was duly informed in time to the complainant Smt. Amrita Sarkar (Ghosh). The CC Account of the complainants was closed and the clearance certificate in respect of the loan of the complainant Smt. Amrita Sarkar (Ghosh) was also provided to her, but the complainant suppressed the actual fact and claimed compensation. It is further stated in the written objection/statement that vide letter dated 03.12.2018, the opposite party-Branch Manager informed the complainant Smt. Amrita Sarkar (Ghosh) to regularize her account. According to the opposite parties, there is no scope to re-open the case which was already ended vide judgment dated 17.05.2018 passed by the learned District Forum in Case No.C.C.90 of 2016 and in compliance of the judgment of the learned District Forum, the opposite parties-Bank has already paid the awarded compensation amounting to Rs.60,000/- to the complainants.
5. The learned District Forum after perusal of the pleadings of the parties formulated the following points for deciding the case:-

1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps?
2. Whether the complainants are entitled to get compensation/relief as prayed for?             

 

6. The learned District Forum considering the oral as well as the documentary evidence on record observed that “It is evident from the case record that between the Complainant and the O.Ps there was previous case vide No.CC-90/2016 regarding the issue of dishonoring of cheque by the O.P. UBI and that the cheque was issued by Sri Samir Ghosh, one of the Complainants. The said case was ultimately ended in judgment dated 17/05/2018 passed by this Forum.” The learned District Forum in its judgment also reproduced the relevant portion of the judgment of CC.90 of 2016 which are as follows:-

“We have gone through the statement of account of another account in the name of Amrita Sarkar. In that account Rs.1,75,000/- was shown deposited on 20.07.2012. Another account 1507250000143 is also in the name of Deep Hotel & Fast Food. So dishonor of cheque when sufficient balance was available was deficiency of service. If Rs.1,75,000/- was wrongly credited against the account of Amrita Sarkar by mistake bank could have taken step for realization of the amount in proper way by assigning reason. Joint account was operated by Samir Ghosh and Amrita Sarkar. Samir Ghosh has the authority to issue the cheque. Accordingly, he issued the cheque. But the cheque was dishonored. It caused harassment to the petitioner and also to the payee of the cheque. This is deficiency of service by the nationalized bank, UBI. UBI had the option to take step for realization of the amount of Rs.1,75,000/- if deposited at all 2nd time by mistake. Firstly the mistake is to rectified through proper procedure by giving opportunity to the account holder. But operation of the bank should not be stopped in such a way to harass the petitioner. The account operation should be revived and cheque should be honored as the amount found available in the bank account. For the deficiency of service of the bank we direct the UBI authority to pay Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand) as compensation. We also direct the O.P. bank to pay Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) as litigation cost, in total Rs.60,000/-(Rupees Sixty Thousand) is to be paid. The bank account is to be made operating without any further delay. Payment is to be made within 2(two) months if not paid it will carry interest @ 9% P.A.”

7. It also appears from the impugned judgment that the opposite party-Bank has complied with the judgment dated 17.05.2018 in Case No.C.C.90 of 2016 of the learned District Forum. Now, in the present complaint petition, the only point for decision before the learned District Forum was as to whether the realization and/or recovery of Rs.1,08,000/- being the part amount of the subsidy of Rs.1,75,000/- was for being allegedly paid to the complainants twice or not. The learned District Forum in its judgment specifically stated that “It seems to us that the O.Ps before embarking upon recovery of the said amount did not issue prior notice to the Complainants rather after deduction of the amount of Rs.1,08,000/- from the Account of the Complainants, the O.Ps issued the letter dated 19/08/2017 under Exhibit-I series to the Complainant Smt. Amrita Sarkar (Ghosh). This act of the O.Ps according to us amounts to deficiency of service.” The learned District Forum in the impugned judgment also observed, inter alia, that:-

“On close scrutiny of the Pass Book issued by the O.Ps in the name of the Complainants under SB A/C No.1507010118088 as Exhibit-I series it is established and proved that on 20/07/2012 an amount of Rs.1,75,000/- was credited in the said Account and thereafter on 27/07/2015 by way of closure proceeds an amount of Rs.1,76,891.36/- was credited in the said Account.

We find that the Complainants have not come forward to explain about the source of the amount of Rs.1,75,000/- against the assertion of the O.Ps that the said amount was credited in the account of the Complainant in the shape of subsidy.

Hence, we are of the opinion that the Complainants are not entitled to get refund of Rs.1,08,000/- which was debited from their account.”

8. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the findings of the learned District Forum in the impugned judgment, the complainants preferred the instant appeal.
9. Mr. Nath, Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant-complainants while urging for setting aside the impugned judgment would contend that admittedly the respondent-opposite party, Bank complied with the judgment of the learned District Forum in Case No. CC.90 of 2016 paying Rs.60,000/- as compensation to the complainants. He has further submitted that after payment of Rs.60,000/- as compensation awarded in CC.90 of 2016, the opposite party-Bank deducted Rs.1,08,000/- from the account of the complainants without following the necessary procedure as per direction of the learned District Forum in Case No.CC.90 of 2016. He has also contended that the judgment passed by the learned District Forum is a contradictory one as the learned District Forum asked the complainant to explain the source of the amount of Rs.1,75,000/- against the assertion of the opposite parties.
10. On the other hand, Mr. Roy Barman, Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondent-opposite parties, Bank while supporting the impugned judgment would contend that the learned District Forum rightly held that the CC.90 of 2016 was ultimately ended in judgment dated 17.05.2018 passed by the learned District Forum and the opposite parties-Bank in compliance of the aforesaid judgment has paid Rs.60,000/- as compensation to the complainant. His further contention before us is that the opposite parties-Bank on 20.07.2012 once credited amounting to Rs.1,75,000/- in the account No.1507010118088 of the complainant, Smt. Amrita Sarkar as subsidy and the said amount was transferred to her loan account and again on 27.07.2015 for second time, the subsidy amount was credited in the aforesaid account of Smt. Amrita Sarkar by way of mistake. Thus, Bank has the authority to cure the mistake done by them by way of deducting the amount in question. He has further contended that the learned District Forum after scrutiny of the passbook of the complainant being SB A/C No.1507010118088 held that it is established and proved that on 20.07.2012 an amount of Rs.1,75,000/- was credited in the said account and thereafter on 27.07.2015 by way of closure proceeds an amount of Rs.1,76,891.36/-  was credited in the said account. He has also submitted that the learned District Forum rightly observed that the complainants have not come forward to explain about source of amount of Rs.1,75,000/- against the assertion of the opposite parties that the said amount was credited in the account of the complainant in the shape of subsidy and opined that the complainants are not entitled to get refund of Rs.1,08,000/- which was debited from their account. He has finally contended that there is no wrong in the impugned judgment. Thus, no interfere is called for.  
11. We have gone through the impugned judgment as well as the evidence on record. Admittedly, the earlier complaint case being No.C.C.90 of 2016 filed by the complainants was ended vide judgment dated 17.05.2018 passed by the learned District Forum and the said judgment was also complied with by the opposite party-Bank. The only question remain to decide by the learned District Forum in the second complaint i.e. the complaint petition in question, as to whether the Bank has the right to rectify its mistake, if any committed by them without issuing any proper notice to the complainants. The learned District Forum rightly scrutinized the passbook of the complainants which was on record and came to the conclusion that on 20.07.2012 an amount of Rs.1,75,000/- was credited in their account and thereafter again on 27,07,2015 by way of closure proceeds an amount of Rs.1,76,891.36/- was again credited in their said account. There is no doubt, if any amount is credited in the account of an account holder due to mistake, then such mistake can be cured after following the necessary procedure i.e. principal of natural justice. In the instant case, as the Bank Authority did not issue any proper notice before deducting the amount of Rs.1,08,000/- from the account of the complainants, the learned District Forum rightly directed the opposite parties to pay Rs.8,000/- as compensation and Rs.4,000/- as cost of litigation, in total Rs.12,000/-. According to us, the learned District Forum also rightly held that the opposite parties are at liberty to recover the amount of Rs.67,000/- from the complainants after following all the legal formalities. Thus according to us, the learned District Forum did not commit any error while passing the impugned judgment. Hence, no interference is called for.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit. 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