DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM

WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

 

CASE NO:  CC – 85  of   2018

 

1. Smt. Amrita Sarkar(Ghosh),

W/o- Sri Pinaki Ghosh.

 

2. Sri Samir Ghosh,

S/O- Late Gour Netai Ghosh.

 

Residents of

Ramkrishna Palli, ITI Road,

P.O. Kunjaban, P.S. New Capital Complex,

Agartala, West Tripura. .......…...Complainants.

 

 

-VERSUS-

 

 

1. United Bank of India,

Regional Office, Tripura,

(Represented by the 

DGM & Chief Regional Manager),

Durgabari Road, Agartala,

West Tripura- 799001.

 

2. United Bank of India,

G.B. Hospital Branch, 

Represented by the Branch Manager,

P.O. Kunjaban, P.S. New Capital Complex,

Agartala, West Tripura- 799006. ............. Opposite Parties.

 

__________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI BAMDEB MAJUMDER

PRESIDENT,

  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 Bimal Kanti Nath,

  Advocate.  

For the O.P. : Sri Amitabha Roybarman,

  Miss Leena Sarkar,

  Advocates.

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:  13.09.2019.

 

J U D G M E N T

The Complainants set the law in motion by presenting the petition U/S-12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 complaining deficiency in service committed by the O.P. nos. 1 & 2.

Complainants' case in brief is that the Complainants are the Joint Proprietors one fast food business shop under the name and style of "Deep Hotel & Restaurant" at Kunjaban, Agartala. As per the recommendation of the Industries Department, Government of Tripura Rs.7 lac was sanctioned as loan to the Complainant Smt. Amrita Sarkar(Ghosh) under the PMEGP Scheme and that out of the said amount, Rs.1,75,000/- was sanctioned as subsidy. As per advise of the O.P. No.2, Complainant Smt. Amrita Sarkar(Ghosh) opened a Cash Credit Account(CCA) with the O.P. No.2 vide CCA No.1507250000143 and the Loan Account was routed through the said account. As per the instruction of the O.P. No.2 both the Complainants have also opened one Joint Savings Bank Account with the O.P. No.2 Bank vide S/B No.157010118088. Another S/B. A/C. in the name of the Complainant Smt. Amrita Sarkar(Ghosh) was also opened vide S/B. A/C No.1507010120395. Rs.4 lac was also kept by way of fixed deposit in the name of the Complainant Smt. Amrita Sarkar(Ghosh) in the Bank of the O.P. No.2. The Complainant Smt. Sarkar started the repayment of the loan with interest as per the guidelines and that after realization of the loan amount with interest in full the O.P. Bank released the subsidy amount of Rs.1,75,000/- in the Joint S/B. A/C of the Complainants. The O.P. No.2 also issued loan clearance certificate in favour of the Complainant No.1 Smt. Amrita Sarkar(Ghosh) and the Cash Credit Account No.1507250000143 also stood closed. The Complainants have stated in their complaint that after clearance of the loan, the Complainant Sri Samir Ghosh issued a cheque in favour of Sri Sanjoy Chanda for an amount Rs.80,000/- only drawn on the O.P. No.2 Bank but the said cheque was dishonored by the O.P. No.2 citing the reasons for insufficient fund in the account of the Complainants vide A/C No.1507010118088. After query the Complainants came to know from the O.P. No.2 Bank that the said S/B. Account was freezed by the O.P. No.2 on the ground that the subsidy amount of Rs.1,75,000/- had been wrongly credited twice in the Joint Bank Account of the Complainants. For the cause of dishonoring of the cheque without justifiable ground and also for freezing the joint account, both the Complainants had filed Consumer complaint before this Forum vide CC No.90/2016 and this Forum passed initially a judgment on 02/03/2017 and thereafter again on 17/05/2018 when the case record was sent back to this Forum by a judgment of the Hon'ble State Commission after setting a side the judgment passed by this Forum dated 02/03/2017 consequent upon an appeal vide No.A/40/2017 which was preferred by the O.P. Bank. By the judgment dated 17/05/2018 this Forum having found deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. Bank had directed both the O.Ps. to pay compensation of Rs.60,000/- including costs of litigation which was ordered to be paid within 02 months from the date of judgment failing which the amount would carry interest @9% per Annam. Apart from this by the said judgment option was given to the O.P. Bank to take steps for realization of the amount of Rs.1,75,000/- if deposited at all 2nd time by mistake and that the mistake would be rectified through proper procedure by giving opportunity to the Account Holders. 

The complainants have alleged in the instant complaint that the O.P. No.2 has illegally deducted Rs.1,08,000/- from the joint account of the Complainants without any prior notice and that after deduction of the said amount, the O.P. No.2 informed it to the Complainants. The Complainants thereafter served Advocate's notice upon the O.P. Bank requesting them to refund / deposit the amount of Rs.1,08,000/- in the joint account of the Complainants. But the O.Ps. did not take any action in response to the said legal notice of the Complainants.  

Being dissatisfied and displeased with the conduct of the O.Ps, the complainants have filed this consumer complaint claiming refund of Rs.1,08,000/-, Rs.50,000/- as compensation, Rs.30,000/- for suffering harassment and mental agony and also Rs.20,000/- as litigation costs from the O.Ps. 

Hence this case. 

2. O.P. UBI appeared and filed written statement denying and disputing the claim of the Complainants. It is stated by the O.Ps. that the subsidy amount of Rs.1,75,000/- was credited in the account of the Complainant Smt. Amrita Sarkar(Ghosh) and the said amount was thereafter 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 O.Ps. the 2nd time entry of the subsidy amount on 27/07/2015 was unintentional mistake which was detected subsequently by the O.P. Bank and the matter was duly informed in time to the Complainant Smt. Amrita Sarkar(Ghosh). The CC Account of the Complainants was closed, the clearance certificate in respect of the loan of the Complainant Smt. Amrita Sarkar(Ghosh) was also given to her. This was informed to the complainant but the complainant suppressed the actual fact and claimed compensation. The O.Ps. further stated in their W.O. that vide letter dated 03/12/2018, the Branch Manager(O.P. No.1) informed the Complainant to regularize her account. According to the O.Ps. there is no scope of the Complainant to re-open the case which was already settled by the Hon'ble District Forum and the O.P. Bank has already paid the compensation of Rs.60,000/- to the Complainants and as such the instant Consumer complaint of the complainant is not maintainable. It has been further stated that the complainants  are not legally entitled claim / retain the amount which  was wrongly credited in their Bank account. 

The O.Ps. have thus prayed for dismissal of the Consumer complaint with costs. 

3. EVIDENCE ADDUCE BY THE PARTIES:-

  The Complainant No.2 Sri Samir Ghosh examined himself as PW-I and submitted his examination in chief by way of affidavit. He has produced 06 documents comprising 12 sheets viz Bank Pass books of S.B. A/C. No.1507010118088 & S.B. A/C. No.15070101230395 in originals of the UBI, G.B. Branch, Loan Clearance Certificate dated 28/07/2015 in original, Copy of legal notice dated 31/07/2018 addressed to the O.Ps., Letter dated 19/08/2017 issued by the O.P. Bank regarding deduction of amount in partial compliance of the judgment dated 02/03/2017 & Copy of the judgment dated 17/05/2018 passed by this Forum in case No. CC-90/2016. The documents are marked Exhibit-I series. 

  The O.Ps have not adduced either oral or documentary evidence in support of their case at the stage of evidence.   

4. POINTS TO BE DETERMINED:- 

  (i) Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps?

  (ii) Whether the complainants are entitled to get compensation/  relief as prayed for?             

5. DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISIONS:- 

We have heard arguments advanced by Learned Advocates for the complainants and the O.Ps. Both the parties have also filed written arguments.

  We have also gone through the complaint, the evidence adduced by way of Affidavit of the Complainant, the documentary evidence produced by the Complainant and the written arguments of both sides.  The O.Ps. have not produced documentary evidence controverting the evidence adduced by the Complainants. 

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. 

We feel it necessary to quote here the relevant portion the said judgment which runs 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.". 

It appears to us the O.P. Bank in-compliance of the judgment dated 17/05/2018 has paid Rs.60,000/- as compensation to the Complainants.  

But regarding the manner in which the O.P. Bank realized / recovered Rs.1,08,000/- being the part amount of the subsidy of Rs.1,75,000/- which was allegedly paid to the Complainants twice appears to us not in accordance with the spirit of the direction given by the Forum in the judgment dated 17/05/2018 in case No.CC-90/2016 as quoted above. The relevant portion in the judgment has been under lined by us for convenience. 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. 

 

On close scrutiny of the Pass Book issued by the O.Ps. in the name of the Complainants under S.B. 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.  

We have already observed that the O.P. Bank did not follow proper procedure before deducting the amount of Rs.1,08,000/- from the Account of the Complainants and that such act of the O.Ps. amounted to deficiency of service. 

In view of the discussion made above, we find and hold that the Complainants have partly proved their case U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and as such they are entitled to get compensation from the O.Ps.

  Both the issues are answered accordingly.

We have thus directed both the O.Ps. to pay Rs.8,000/- as compensation and Rs.4,000/- as costs of litigation. The O.Ps. are to pay the total amount of Rs.12,000/-  to the Complainants within a period of 2 months from the date of judgment failing which the amount shall carry interest @ 9% P.A. till the payment is made in full. 

Be it mentioned here that after compliance of the above direction both the O.Ps. are at liberty to recover the remaining amount of Rs.67,000/- from the Complainants within 02 months  after observing all legal formalities.

ANNOUNCED

 

 SRI BAMDEB MAJUMDER

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

SRI U. DAS

MEMBER,

DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

 WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.