This appeal is directed against the final decisive order passed in CC No. 113/2019 on 19.02.2020 by Ld. DCDRF Cooch Behar on the basis of the consumer complaint filed by one Akai Sarkar and Ayush Sarkar as Minors through their Mother Sampa Sarkar as natural guardian on 21.10.2019.

The complaint case in short is that the mother of the complainants had opened two Term Deposit Accounts in their name when they were minor on 11.08.2010 with O.P. No.1 being account No.TD CS by 32 0347912 31323781384 & TD CS by 32 - 0347913 31323783405 amounting to Rs.3,44,285/- each maturity values the date of which was 11.08.2018 for 8 years. But on maturity, O.P. credited the amount in Account Rs.6,21,608/-. On being approached O.P. No.2 claimed that the said amount was credited after deduction of tax. However, no paper relating to tax was submitted to her. However, subsequently Complainant going through the "TDS Traces" for the relevant financial year 2010-11 to 2017-18 and found that an amount of Rs.6,833/- was deposited as TDS for the financial year 2017-18 only. So, according to petitioner, she is entitled to Rs.60.129/- from the O.P. which was not given to her though Complainant several times approached the O.P. but nothing was done in her favour.

She also filed one written complaint in this regard to the O.P. Ultimately, she was compelled to file this complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986 before Ld. Forum for necessary relief.

The O.P. did not contest the case by making appearance and filing written version etc.

Ld. Forum on the basis of evidence in the form of affidavit and documents come to a conclusion that maturity value of two fixed deposits stand at Rs. 6,88,570/-, while the bank after unauthorized deduction of Tax, only credited Rs. 6,28,441/- and intentionally withhold the balance amount Rs.60,124/- and for that reason the complaint case was allowed exparte and bank was directed to return back the said Rs.60,129/- including interest @6% P.A. from the date of Maturity of two term deposits and Rs. 5000/- as compensation and Rs. 3000/- as litigation cost.

Being aggrieved with the order, this appeal follows.

Though Op S.B.I Dinhata branch has not contested the consumer case due to some inner problems of branch officials. They have appeared before the Ld. Forum after receiving notice of the execution case. There after this appeal on the grounds that the order of Ld. Forum suffers from irregularity, inherent errors and not vested in law.

The appeal was admitted in due course and interim order of stay upon the execution case was passed.

The appeal was contested by the complainant (respondent) through ld. Advocate Roshan Ara.

The hearing of the appellant case was conducted by the Ld. Advocate Mr. P. Joardar.

Both sides has furnished the WNA.

                                                                        Decision with reasons

The admitted position is that the Minor Complainant (at the Material time were minors) opened two term deposit accounts in their names on 11.08.2010 for eight years fixed amounting to Rs. 3,44,255 each as total maturity value on 11.08.2018 fixed at Rs. 6,88,570.

It is also established that the complainants/depositors had no registered PAN Card till the Financial year 2017-2018. The bank since the financial year 2011-12 to 2017-18 deducted income tax on interest @20%. While, the complainant/depositors, submitted the PAN Card with year 2017-18 and 10% TDS reverse credited to the A/C of the complainant/depositors. Now the question is whether the bank has rightly deducted the TDS or over deducted or irregularly deducted, to be determined.

Ld. Advocate of the appellant submits that while opening the said STDR Accounts, PAN Cards of the Minors abovenamed were not submitted by their mother and Natural Guardian Smt. Sampa Sarkar, Accordingly, TDS were deducted from the interest @ 20% for the Financial Year 2010-2011 and thereafter up to the financial Year 2016-2017 as per norms by the Computer System itself. PAN Cards of those Minor Customers/Respondents were submitted during Financial Year 2017-2018 in accordingly TDS in respect of those accounts were deducted @ 10% on interest accrued thereon for the year 2017-2018. It is to be noted that the said deductions are done by the computer system itself, not manually by any officer of the Appellant Bank. The proceed after deduction of TDS mentioned above of those STDRS were paid on maturity on 10.08.2018 on request of the mother and natural guardian of the Respondents/Minor Customers. The Respondents represented by their mother and natural guardian was aware of regarding such deduction of TDS with regard to subject STDR and accordingly she/they did not raise any objection or claim with regard to deduction of such TDS on interest of the STDRS. The mother of the Respondents at the time of receiving had the full understand/know/aware of the reason of deduction of interest accrued upon the STDRS for reason of non-production of PAN Cards of those minor customer prior to the Financial Year 2017-2018. The Appellant Bank has no hand for such deduction of TDS as the same is done by the Computer System which is in accordance with the subject STDRS.

Ld. Advocate of the respondents countered this argument by mentioning that as per bank papers total TDS was Rs. 39675/-. Then after deduction of said amount from the maturity amount, the remaining amount stands at Rs. 6,48,895/-. After PAN production, bank credited 10% of TDS 2017-18 to the tune of Rs. 6833/-. The bank has shown the amount of fixed deposit- 6,21,609 + 6833 = 6,28, 441/-.Therefore Rs. 20,454(6,48,895 – 6,28,441) still remains to be credited in the A/C of the complainants.

After going through all the TDS papers produced by the appellant, it is shown that total TDS up to 2017-18 was deducted Rs. 39,675/-  as per income tax rule.

The bank was compelled to deduct 20% of accrued interest since No PAN of the complainant was there till the F- year 2016-2017. As soon the PAN was obtained on F- 2017-2018 bank returned back by reverse credit Rs.6833 (10%) to the fixed deposit maturity amount. But bank has failed to justify as to why the remining Rs. 20,454/- was not credited to the A/C of the complainants.

This was the shortfall on the part of the bank which deemed unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on its part.

So, the order of Ld. Forum about fixing liability upon the bank to pay Rs. 60,129/- to be reduced to Rs.20,454. The remaining speaking portion of order of the Ld. Forum shall remain intact.

Ld. Forum had asked to pay 6% P.A. as interest over the shortfall amount. But as per this term deposit scheme, the rate of interest was 7.9% P.A. (approx.) on 11/08/2018. So, the rate of interest to be fixed @ 8% P.A. upon shortfall amount Rs. 20,454/- since the maturity date (11/08/2018) till the final payment, instead of 6% P.A.

                                                                              Hence it is Ordered,

That the instant appeal be and the same registered by the appellant branch manager of SBI, Dinhata is hereby partly allowed on contest without any cost.

The final order dated 19.02.2022 passed by Ld. DCDRF, Cooch Behar in CC No. 113 of 2019 is hereby modified to the effect that the SBI, Dinhata branch shall pay Rs. 20,454 along with interest @8% P. A. Since the date of maturity i.e., on 11.08.2018 within 45 days and compensation to the tune of Rs. 5000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 3000/- shall remain intact. If the appellate bank fails to comply this order within 45days, additional interest @6% P.A. will be imposed.

A copy of this order to be supplied to the parties free of cost and the same to be communicated to the Ld. DCDRF, Cooch Behar.