State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
United Bank Of India vs Sri Subodh Chandra Kotal on 18 May, 2012
D R A F T
State Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission
West Bengal
BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND
FLOOR)
31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE
KOLKATA 700 027
S.C. CASE NO.
: FA/234/2011
(Arising out
of order dated 13.04.2011 of Consumer Case No. 121/2010 of D.C.D.R.F., Paschim
Midnapore)
Date of Filing : 17.05.2011 Date of Final Order : 18.05.2012
APPELLANTS/COMPLAINANTS :
United Bank of India
Represented by its Branch
Manager, Pingla Branch, P.O.
&
P.S. Pingla, District
Paschim
Medinipur.
RESPONDENTS/O.P.S :
Shri Subodh Chandra Kotal,
S/o Late Chunilal Kotal, of
Village
Tungpur, P.O. & P.S.
Pingla,
District Paschim
Medinipur.
BEFORE : HONBLE JUSTICE : Sri Kalidas
Mukherjee,
President.
MEMBER : Sri
S. Coari.
MEMBER : Smt.
Mridula Roy.
FOR THE PETITIONER /
APPELLANT : Mr. Debasis Bhandari,
Ld. Advocate.
FOR THE RESPONDENT / O.P.S. :
Mr. Barun Prasad,
Ld. Advocate.
: O R D E R :
No. 8/18.05.2012.
MRIDULA ROY, MEMBER.
The instant appeal has been directed against an order passed by the Ld. District Forum, Paschim Midnapore on 13.04.2011 allowing the petition of complaint on contest, directing the O.P. Bank to pay the same payable in respect of the fixed deposits of the Complainant as described in the schedule of the complaint with uptodate interest thereon at the agreed rate of interest, to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- and to pay Rs.2,000/- towards litigation cost to the Complainant within one month from the date of communication of the order, failing which, the O.Ps are liable to pay interest on the amount due @ 12% per annum till payment.
The case of the Complainant (Respondent herein) before the Ld. Forum below in brief, is that he invested Rs.12,762/- with the O.P. Bank in the Pingla Branch in its CSPCD being No. 834706 as term deposit w.e.f. 15.03.2008.
On maturity the said investment was reinvested again. The maturity date of investment was 14.03.2010 and matured value was of Rs.15,248/-. To encash the certificate the Complainant presented the same on 16.03.2010 before the O.P. Bank but the Branch Manager of the O.P. Bank refused to pay the amount stating that the certificate was under lien. The Complainant made several correspondences for encashment of the term deposit but he was refused in every time. The Complainant also made investment of Rs.20,000/- in CSPCD being No. 172810 on 18.12.2008 for 24 months, Rs.2,500/- in CSPCD being No. 834593 on 10.01.2008 for 36 months, Rs.4,500/- in CSPCD being No. 834602 on 22.01.2008 for 36 months, Rs.25,500/- in CSPCD being No. 834774 on 29.05.2008 for 36 months and Rs.14,129/- in CSPCD being No. 168982 on 11.12.2008 for 24 months. However, the Complainant made several correspondences including Advocates letter to the O.P. Bank but all were in vain.
Hence, he filed the instant case before the Ld. District Forum praying for direction upon the O.Ps to pay the Complainant Rs.1,06,088/- and to pay the interest @ 10% per annum on the awarded amount and to pay cost of litigation.
The O.P. contested the case by filing Written Version denying and disputing all the allegations stating inter alia that the Complainant stood guarantor against a cash-credit loan obtained by one Mr. Barun Ghosh, son of Late Bimal Ch. Ghosh of Tungur P.O. & P.S. Pingla, District Paschim Midnapore on 10.11.2004 for financial assistance of his readymade garment unit under Rural Employment Generation Programme and to that effect the borrower executed certain loan documents such as (1) D.P. Note for Rs.1,00,000/- with interest @ 8.75% per annum, (2) A hypothecation of debts and movable assets agreement (3) a letter of continuity and (4) a letter of lien for the purpose. The Borrower, Mr. Barun Ghosh presented the instant Respondent Mr. Subodh Ch. Kotal as one of the personal guarantors. As per norms of the Bank guarantor was liable to pay all amount advanced to the borrower on demand at any time. The borrower i.e. Subodh ch. Kotal also executed one Letter of Guarantee on 10.11.2004 for loan taken by the borrower, Barun Ghosh and thereby became jointly and severally liable to pay all dues of the Bank. Since the borrower, Barun Ghosh has not repaid the loan the guarantor is liable to pay Rs.87,193/- as due amount upto December, 2010 to the Bank. The Bank further stated that the Complainant initiated a criminal case being Pingla P.S Case No. 34 of 2000 dated 07.05.2010 Under Section 409 IPC, 120 B IPC against the Branch Manager of the O.P. Bank and also filed the complaint case being No. 121 of 2010. The O.P. Bank stated that the borrower and the guarantor had nexus and therefore, the borrower filed the case against the bank. The Bank further stated that the Bank can exercise its right of lien under Section 171 of Indian Contract Act to realize the deposit lying in the bank in the name of borrower and guarantor. By exercising the said right the Bank did not allow the Complainant to encash the said term deposits.
DECISION WITH REASONS :
Admittedly, the Complainant invested some amount with the O.P. Bank.
The Complainant presented the said deposit before the O.P. Bank to encash the sum for urgent need of money but the Bank treated the investment certificates were under lien and did not allow the Complainant to encash the same. It is also admitted position that one Barun Ghosh obtained loan from O.P. Bank against which the Complainant stood as guarantor. The O.P. Bank repeatedly harped on the same string that as per the letter of guarantee executed by and between the parties i.e. guarantor, Subodh ch. Kotal, Complainant of the case and the Bank, the bank keeps the certificate on hold as those are under lien since the borrower has failed to repay the loan. On perusing the letter of guarantee it appears that the guarantor was liable to pay the unpaid amount of the loan if the borrower fails to repay the same. No doubt, the Complainant is liable to pay the amount as guarantor but no such condition was written within the four corners of the letter of guarantee that the said term deposits were under lien in connection with the loan obtained by Barun Ghosh. Therefore, bank cannot hold the said investment certificate treating them as under lien in connection with the said loan. In fact Bank has no right to hold the same for the said purpose as there is no lien of the certificate in connection with the said loan. Holding unnecessarily the certificates and therefore, preventing the Complainant to encash the same for urgent need of money is definitely an example of deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. Bank.
The Ld. Forum below right by directed the Bank to pay the sum payable in respect of the fixed deposits as described in the schedule of the petition of complaint.
It is well settled that the Decree Holder cannot get interest on the amount payable by the JDR and at the same time to get compensation for incurring loss. In fact, it is two fold benefit on the single cause of action. Regarding this point we are of opinion that to get the amount of interest accrued on the principal amount is a sort of compensation and the Bank is liable to pay the interest @ 9% per annum on the amount from the date of presentation of the same before the bank for encashment i.e. 16.03.2010 and that is sufficient to compensate the Complainant.
In the result the appeal is allowed in part on contest without cost.
The impugned judgement is modified to the extent that the O.P. Bank is directed to pay the sums payable in respect of the said fixed deposits with interest @ 9% per annum from 16.03.2010 till realization thereof. The O.P. Respondent Bank is directed to pay Rs.3,000/- towards litigation cost.
MEMBER (MR) MEMBER (SC) PRESIDENT