| Complaint Case No. CC/13/2021 | | ( Date of Filing : 15 Jan 2021 ) |
| | | | 1. Srimati Bibha Roy | | W/O.: Sri Patit Paban Roy, At Town Padumbasan, (Near Rajbati Gate), P.O. & P.S.: Tamluk, PIN.: 721636 | | Purba Medinipur | | West Bengal |
| ...........Complainant(s) | |
| Versus | | 1. Branch Manager (Punjab National Bank) | | Harirbazar, P.O. & P.S.: Tamluk, PIN.: 721636 | | Purba Medinipur | | West Bengal |
| ............Opp.Party(s) |
|
|
| Final Order / Judgement | Ld Advocate for the complainant is present. Judgement is pronounced in open Commission in 3 pages. BY - SRI.SAURAV CHANDRA, MEMBER - Brief facts of the Complainant’s case are that the Opposite Party is a Nationalized Bank with whom the Complainant as a Woman Senior Citizen deposited Rs.3,00,000.00 in a Spectrum Fixed Deposit Scheme @ 9.5% Interest for 8 Years w.e.f 10.10.2011 to 10.10.2019.
- Accordingly the Op had issued Fixed Deposit Receipt No. 330500DP00001712 to the Complainant with mentioning the Maturity Value of Rs.6,35,809.00 on 10.10.2019.
- After maturity of the said Fixed Deposit, the Complainant received Rs.6,11,431.00 on 10.10.2019 in her Savings Bank Account No. 3305000102031352 with a deduction of Rs.24,378.00 from the actual Maturity Value of Rs.6,35,809.00.
- Then the Complainant made several verbal requests as well as lodged written complaint before the Op on 15.02.2020 and lastly raised a Demand Notice through her Learned Advocate on 24.02.2020 for Refunding the Balance Matured Amount of Rs.24,378.00 but, the Op didn’t pay any heed.
- Thereafter, the Petitioner preferred to file the instant case before this Commission.
- The cause of action of this case arose on and from 25.02.2020.
The Complainant, therefore, prays fordirecting the op:- - To pay back the Rest Portion of Fixed Deposit Maturity Value amounting to Rs.24,378.00 by OP.
- To pay Compensation of Rs.2,400.00.
- To pay Litigation Cost of Rs.2,000.00 to the Complainant for conducting the case.
- Notices were duly served upon the Op but, Op is preferred to see that the case be decided ex-parte against it.
- Under the above circumstances, the Complainant has prayed for ex-parte order against the Op.
- Points for determination are:
- Is the case maintainable in its present form and in law?
- Is the Complainant entitled to the relief(s) as sought for?
- Decision with reasons
- Both the points I and II, being inter related to each other, are taken up together for discussion for sake of brevity and convenience.
- We have carefully perused the Petition of the Complainant evidence adduced ,along with all papers and other documents.
- Having regards had to the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of evidence, it is evident that there is no dispute that Complainant is a consumer having grievances against the Op, as such the case is maintainable in its present form and in law.
- It is the tenet of law that the complainant must prove his case as alleged in the complaint. The averment reflects crux of grievances is that the Op had issued Fixed Deposit Receipt No. 330500DP00001712 to the Complainant with mentioning the Maturity Value of Rs.6,35,809.00 on 10.10.2019 : but after maturity of the said Fixed Deposit, the Complainant received Rs.6,11,431.00 on 10.10.2019 in her Savings Bank Account No. 3305000102031352 with a deduction of Rs.24,378.00 from the actual Maturity Value of Rs.6,35,809.00. It was not apprehended or understood by the complainant as to why a deduction of Rs.24,378.00 from the actual Maturity Value of Rs.6,35,809.00 was done. Now, it is known to all bank customer that Tax Deduction at Source is on the accrued interest by the Nationalized Bank. The complainant could sort out his grievances had he field Income Tax Return in the concerned Financial Year. Had he submitted documents of Income Tax Return of the concerned Financial Year the amount of accrued interest or deduction thereto could have been ascertained. The complainant could have perused the status under section 26 AS of the I T Act. In course of argument this aspect was highlighted. But the complainant has not filed any document of Income Tax Return of the concerned Financial Year. Thus, the complainant has failed to bring home the elements of negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the op. The complainant is not entitled to get any relief .
- Both the points are decided accordingly.
- Thus, the complaint case fails.
Hence, it is O R D E R E D That the CC-13 of 2021 be and the same is dismissed ex-parte against the Op. Let a copy of this judgment be provided to the Complainant free of costs. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties. File be consigned to record section along with a copy of this judgment. | |
