Tripura

StateCommission

A/46/2016

Sri. Bikash Ch. Das - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chairman of Tripura Gramin Bank. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Anjan Kanti Pal

09 Jan 2017

ORDER

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tripura.

 

Case No.A.46.2016

 

 

1.Shri Bikash Ch. Das,

S/o Shri Paresh Ch. Das,

of Vill - Bhattapukur, Kalitilla,

P.O. A. D. Nagar, P.S. A.D. Nagar,

Agartala, West Tripura.

… … … … Appellant/Petitioner

 

 

1.The Chairman of

Tripura Gramin Bank,

Abhoynagar, P.O. Abhoynagar

P.S. East Agartala, Tripura West.

 

2.The Branch Manager,

Tripura Gramin Bank,

Bardowali Branch,

P.O. - A.D. Nagar, P.S. - A.D. Nagar,

Agartala, West Tripura.

 

3.The Director of Industries & Commerce

Government of Tripura,

Airport Road, Near Ginger Hotel

P.O. - Kathal Bagan, P.S. - N.C.C.

Agartala, Tripura West.

 

… … … … Respondents/Opposite Parties

 

Present

 

Mr. Justice U.B. Saha,

President,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

Mrs. Sobhana Datta,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

Mr. Narayan Sharma,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

For the Appellant: Mr. Anjan Kanti Pal, Adv.

For the Respondents: Ms. Leena Sarkar, Adv.

Date of Hearing & Delivery of Judgment: 09.01.2017.

 

J U D G M E N T [O R A L]

 

 

U.B. Saha,J,

This appeal filed by the appellant-petitioner, Shri Bikash Ch. Das, S/o Shri Paresh Ch. Das of Bhattapukur, Agartala, West Tripura under section 15 of the Consumers Protection Act, 1986 is directed against the Judgment dated 03.10.2016 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, West Tripura, Agartala (hereinafter referred to as District Forum), in case No.CC-59/2016 whereby and whereunder the Ld. District Forum dismissed the complaint petition as time barred.

2. Heard Mr. Anjan Kanti Pal, Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant-petitioner. Also heard Ms. Leena Sarkar, Ld. Advocate appearing for the respondent-opposite party nos.1 & 2. We have also heard Mr. Sajal Chakraborty, Assistant Director, Industries & Commerce, who appeared on behalf of the respondent no.3, Directorate of Industries & Commerce Department, Government of Tripura by way of filing Authorization Letter.
3. Brief facts of the case needed to be discussed are as follows:-
4. Admittedly, the appellant-petitioner, Shri Bikash Ch. Das (hereinafter referred to as petitioner) applied for loan amounting to Rs.2 lacs through Industries Department from the respondent no.2, Tripura Gramin Bank (hereinafter referred to as TGB/Bank) in the year 2010-11. The aforesaid amount of loan was sanctioned by the TGB on 29.03.2011 and an amount of Rs.1,90,000/- was sanctioned under “SWAVALAMBAN Scheme” out of that Rs.1,28,000/- was given to the petitioner and Rs.60,000/- was converted to LIC Policy in the name of the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has received only Rs.1,28,000/- out of Rs.2 lacs, but did not receive Rs.60,000/- as well as Rs.25,000/- which was given by the respondent no.3, Industries & Commerce Department as subsidy. It is the further case of the petitioner that, he has started grocery business with the money received from the Bank, but as he did not receive the remaining sanctioned loan amount of Rs.60,000/- from the Bank, a legal notice was issued on 12.04.2016, but then also, he could not get the amount of Rs.60,000/- for which he has filed a complaint petition under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the Ld. District Forum claiming compensation of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.1 lac for his harassment and deficiency in service of the Bank. The respondent-opposite party nos.1 & 2, TGB appeared and filed their written objection by raising the question of maintainability of the complaint petition being time barred. In their written objection, the TGB Authority also stated that the loan was sanctioned to the petitioner on 29.03.2011, the subsidy amount was credited to his loan account on 18.11.2013 and the LIC Policy as alleged by the petitioner was issued on 31.03.2011. It is further the case of respondent-opposite party, Bank that the petitioner himself obtained the LIC Policy by putting his own signature on the proposal form on 31.03.2011 and subsequently, the said policy was assigned in favour of the Bank on 05.12.2012 and the complaint petition has been filed before the District Forum in the month of July, 2016 i.e. after more than 4 years from the alleged cause of action.
5. The Ld. District Forum on the basis of the contention raised by the parties has decided the following points:-  

1. Whether the case is barred by the limitation?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to get any compensation?

6. In support of its contention, the petitioner has produced the Legal Notice, LIC Policy, Bank Pass Book & Bank Draft, which are marked as Exhibit-1 series and he also examined himself as one of the witness as P.W.1.
7. The respondent-opposite party, Bank produced the Computer generated statement, Account statements, LIC Policy Loan etc. but did not adduced any oral evidence.
8. After hearing the Ld. Counsel of the parties and considering the admitted fact on record, the Ld. District Forum held that there was no deficiency in service by the TGB as the petitioner claimed Rs.62,000/- from the Bank, but out of that amount Rs.60,000/- was already paid as LIC premium. After 10 years from the date of policy, the petitioner will get Rs.80,000/- and the TGB Authority should adjust the subsidy of Rs.25,000/- given by the Government and after adjustment the rest of amount should be realised from the petitioner and also held that the complaint petition is time barred as the same was filed after 4 years from the date of cause of action i.e. from the date of issuance of insurance policy.
9. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Ld. District Forum, the petitioner filed the present appeal on the ground that the respondent-opposite party, TGB Authority have no right to make an insurance policy in the name of the petitioner i.e. loanee for his life in lieu of his business units coverage insurance. It is also contended that the Bank Authority hiddenly made such policy in the name of the petitioner without his consent. Mr. Pal, Ld. Counsel appearing for the petitioner while urging for setting aside the impugned judgment and allowing the appeal has contended that the petitioner came to know about his insurance policy only after completion of 4 years from the alleged issuance of insurance policy, as when the petitioner asked the respondent-Bank to release the remaining amount of Rs.62,000/- which was lying with the Bank.
10. Miss Sarkar, Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondent-opposite party, TGB while supporting the impugned judgment has contended that the Ld. District Forum rightly dismissed the complaint petition of the petitioner, as for filing a complaint petition, the limitation period is prescribed 2 years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. She further submits that admittedly, in the instant case, the policy which was signed by the petitioner was issued on 31.03.2011 and complaint petition was filed on 21.07.2016.
11. Mr. Chakraborty, Assistant Director, (I&C) appearing for the respondent no.3 submits that the subsidy amount of Rs.25,000/- which was granted in favour of the petitioner has already been deposited with the respondent-Bank which was credited in the account of the petitioner on 18.11.2012. He further submits that the petitioner has no grievance against the respondent no.3 for which, the respondent no.3 did not file any written objection.
12. We have gone through the impugned judgment of the Ld. District Forum as well as the rival contention of the parties in their respective pleadings. It is admitted position that the loan of Rs.1,90,000/- was sanctioned to the petitioner on 29.03.2011 and the LIC Policy was issued on 31.03.2011 which was signed by the petitioner himself and not only that, the said policy was assigned in favour of the Bank on 05.12.2012. The date of cause of action should not be counted from the date of issuance of the lawyer notice, rather that should be counted from the date of issuance of the Insurance Policy, as in the instant appeal, the petitioner’s main grievance is regarding Insurance Policy. As per section 24 A of the Consumers Protection Act, 1986, the Limitation Period for admitting a complaint is two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen, but in the instant case, the cause of action arose on 31.03.2011 and admittedly, the complaint petition was filed on 27.07.2016 i.e. beyond the period of 2 years as prescribed by section 24A of C.P. Act.
13. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the Ld. District Forum did not commit any wrong while dismissing the complaint petition filed by the petitioner. However, as the petitioner is a poor businessman, the Bank Authority shall follow the direction of the Ld. District Forum as mentioned in its judgment.    

In the result, the appeal is dismissed. 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