Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that as a senior citizen he deposited Rs. 50,000/- against term deposit on 26.12.2012 at a daily interest of 9percent p.a. against SB A/C No. 039632900023/3 and the interest of the said term deposit is/was always deposited against SB A/C of the complainant being No. 039610102837 yearly interest of the term deposit of Rs. 50,000/- was Rs. 4,500/- which is not within the ambit of the Income Tax Act.
Thereafter complainant submitted 15H Form on 22.01.2014. But from that account a sum of Rs. 332/- was deducted on 26.01.2014 as TDS and for deducting such TDS though yearly interest does not exceed taxable limit complainant tried to search out the cause to the Branch Manager. But Branch Manager asserted about it. Thereafter complainant filed an application on 02.01.2014 under R.T.I. Act but the op Branch Manager did not respond and in the above circumstances, complainant prayed for redressal and for refund that amount including compensation.
On the other hand the Branch Manager by filing written statement submitted that no doubt complainant opened Kamdhenu Deposit or KDR for Rs. 50,000/- on 26.12.2012 at the rate of interest 9.0percent p.a., which was matured on 04.07.2014 with instruction to credit the interest in his SB Account and complainant was advised to file 15H Form. In reply complainant had said the official of the bank that he would submit the same in time.
Subsequently on 13.01.2014 complainant further deposited a sum of Rs. 50,000/- in another deposit for 555 days being named Kamdhenu Deposit being KDR No. 0396381000001/1 at the rate of interest 9.8percent p.a. with the op/Bank. Op/Bank further submitted that complainant submitted 15H Form to the op on 22.01.2014. Accordingly on the same day it was updated in the system record by the op without anytime loss and op further submitted that from the reports dated 15.07.2014 TDS was waived in both deposits from the date of 22.01.2014 and on wards for the financial year and further op/Bank submitted that the system had already calculated the TDS payable on all interests accrued in the name of depositor i.e. complainant from 01.04.2013 to 21.01.2014 for Rs. 332/- which is the date prior to submission of 15H Form by the complainant and the said amount was remitted by the system on 26.03.2014.
It is further submitted that Rs. 332/- was deducted on the interest for the months of June, September and December, 2013 quarters on KDR being No. 0396329000023. This interest alone was not eligible for TDS. But complainant opened his second KDR for Rs. 5,00,000/- on 13.01.2014 and the total interest payable on the second KDR deposit alone for the financial year 2013-14 was for Rs. 10,471.23 paisa. Accordingly due to above stated reason the interest payable to the complainant became eligible for TDS and after submission of 15H Form by the complainant, TDS was waived in both deposits from the date 22.01.2014 to onwards for the current financial year. So, there was no alteration or misbehavior on the part of the op with the complainant.
Further op submitted that due to some problem in the system it could not generate the statements from the system as wanted by the complainant and as a result complainant himself got very agitated and other officials of the op requested him to calm down and complainant left the branch. Save and except no incident happened and all the allegations of the complainant are false and fabricated. In the above circumstances, the claim should be dismissed.
Decision with reasons
On careful consideration of the complaint and written version including argument of the Ld. Lawyers of both the parties and particularly relying upon the written version, it is clear that complainant as consumer submitted application praying for getting information as per R.T.I. Act that was not at all considered by the op/Bank which is evident from the fact that no answer has been given by the op/Bank as per R.T.I. Act which is no doubt illegal act on the part of the Bank Authority. But Bank Authority in their written statement submitted that due to some problem in their system they could not generate the system as wanted by the complainant and such a plea is false plea of Branch Manager and such type of Branch Manager should be penalized for submitting such false statements on the ground when the problem of the system was cured, the op/Bank did not send it to the complainant. It is no doubt disputable activities on the part of the op Branch Manager. So, apparently the deficient manner of service on the part of the op is well proved. Regarding deduction of TDS, it is found that second TDS was opened on 13.01.2014 and 15H Form was submitted on 22.01.2014. So, invariably over Rs. 5,00,000/- the rate of interest 9.8percent p.a. for the period from 13.01.2014 to 22.01.2014 cannot be more than Rs. 10,000/-.
But considering the written version of the op, it is clear that the op Authority assessed Rs. 10,000/- as interest for the period for January, February and March 2014 for which op has tried to convince that in the financial year 2013-14 against KDR No. 03963811000/1 interest was assessed of Rs. 10,000/- that means op deducted excess amount assessed total interest of Rs. 10,471.23 paisa and it is also found from the op’s own written statement (at Page -4) that op deducted such amount calculated interest of Rs. 5,00,000/-. But there was no ground for assessing such an interest for 3 months when the said KDR No. ending 001/1 was opened just on 13.01.2014 and 15H Form was submitted on 22.01.2014 and as per op’s version it was updated in the system on that day. Then how op can assess interest from January to March 2014 against that KDE Account.
Another factor is that TDS interest must be deducted against each account and in respect of earlier interest not from one account and that is the provision of law. Another factor is that in respect of another KDR Account No. 0396329000023, there was no question of deduction of taxes because yearly interest was not above of Rs. 10,000/-. Then question is how Rs. 332/- was deducted from that account ending with No. 023. Practically some misguiding defenceis being taken by the Bank in most of cases to this Forum. But fact remains fault is on the part of the op.
Another factor is that the second KDR No. ending with No. 001/1 was opened on 13.01.2014 and as per rule 15H Form in such case must be submitted within 15 days from opening of such account and complainant submitted 15H Form within 15 days from the date of opening the second KDR account ending No. 001/1 on 22.01.2011 and timely op has updated the same on 22.01.2014 and that is the fact then how op/Bank deducted TDS against total interest of Rs. 10,471.23 paisa for the year 2013-2014.
Most interesting factor is that op has assessed the interest against second account ending No. 001/1 to the extent of Rs. 10,471.23 paisa for the period 01.04.2013 to 31.03.2014. But truth is that on 22.01.2014 complainant submitted 15H Form and that was updated by the op/Bank. Then after 22.01.2014 op/Bank had no legal authority to count down the subsequent interest up to 31.05.2014 for assessing TDS and only to save their skin, op/Bank has not stated in the certificate of interest paid on deposit the actual interest paid in between the period 13.01.2014 to 22.01.2014 and invariably from 13.01.2014 to 22.01.2014 the total interest cannot be Rs. 10,471.23 paisa but that interest was assessed for some other purpose and that was included and total interest figure has become Rs. 10,471.23 paisa against second KDR ending No. 001/1 and no doubt it is one type of unfair business adopted by the op/Bank and they submitted a false defence before this Forum showing some false statements and the op Branch Manager has no legal and moral base to place before this Forum actually what was the total interest amount from 13.01.2014 to 21.01.2014 against second KDR deposit for an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- if that would be disclosed by the op, in that case it would be found that op is callous in his expression and daily work duty and it is proved op/Bank has been harassing the consumers in so many manners and it is their business for which they appointed such corrupt Branch Manager and fact remains only to save their skin they submitted some documents which are fabricated by them only for the purpose to confuse this Forum. But we have no confusion about the overact of the op/Bank and dishonest the Branch Manager of the op/Bank and practically the Manager of the Bank has failed to show his morality and honesty before this Forum.
For the sake of the argument if it is accepted that prior to filing of the 15H Form, complainant enjoyed total accrued interest more than Rs. 10,000/- as alleged by the op,then it was the duty of the op/Bank to submit the actual statement. But op/Bank has suppressed that fact and shown an excessive interest in respect of second KDR fixed deposit ending no. 001/1 and after rough calculation of the said account in respect of assessing interest for the period of 13.01.2014 to 21.01.2014 we have gathered that under any circumstances the accrued interest cannot be more than Rs. 3,000/- and adding with that the total interest of first KDR fixed deposit being ending No. 023 yearly interest are assessed of Rs. 4,500/- and sototal interest figure of the said two KDRs fixed deposit would be Rs. 7,500/- and further adding with that Rs.218.02/- figure would be Rs. 7,718.02 paisa.
So, on the part of the Bank Authority has no legal authority to deduct TDS because it did not exceed Rs. 10,000/- as total interest. But only to save their dishonest practice particularly of the Branch Manager in such a fashion false statement has been submitted by the op for which we are confirmed that deduction of TDS by the op against the account of the complainant is completely beyond his jurisdiction and it has been deducted by the op without devoting daily in their daily duties without ascertaining the actual interest and that is no doubt an intentional fault in their daily duties performed by the Bank and the Branch Manager also adopted said malpractice before this Forum and no doubt Bank is here and there to deduct the TDS and to deposit to the Central Government Income Tax Department but same shall be addressed properly against Customer at first and then to deduct.
After considering the entire fact we have gathered that the complainant has been harassed by this Branch Manager which is proved from the fact. He did not care to comply the provision of R.T.I. Act though complainant filed such application and for that reason the Branch Manager should be imposed penalty also for negligence and deficient manner of activities and for disobeyaing the mandatory provision of R.T.I. Act and at the same time the complainant has been harassed by the op/Bank is well proved for which op should be imposed such compensation and penal cost etc.
Thus the complaint succeeds.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest with cost of Rs. 2,000/- and for adopting unfair practice for deducting such amount may be low amount and for assessing the accrued interest falsely by the op/Bank and to deduct a tax, though the total interest against three accounts is not more than Rs. 7,700/-. But op has tried to show the total interest was Rs. 15,189.24 paisa against that Rs. 332/- was deducted and such an act is no doubt a deceitful act on the part of the op and no doubt complainant has been harassed by the op, op has violated the mandatory provision of R.T.I. Act also for which op/Bank is hereby directed to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant and further they shall have to refund Rs. 332/- and that is total Rs. 7,332/- to the complainant within 15 days along with cost of Rs. 2,000/- from the date of this order failing which for non compliance and disobeyance of Forum’s order, op shall have to pay penal interest at the rate Rs. 100/- per day till full satisfaction of the decree and penal interest shall be deposited to this Forum if it is collected.
Even if it is found that op is reluctant to comply the order and in that case op shall be prosecuted u/s 27 of C.P. Act 1986 for which he shall have to pay further penalty and fine for which he shall be responsible.
