IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.

             CASE No.  CC/85/2018.

 Date of Filing:                    Date of Admission:                Date of Disposal:

     15.05.18                                      04.06.18                              03.09.19

Complainant: Badal Chakraborty

S/O- Late Prafulla Kr. Chakraborty,

91, Old Police Line Road, PO- Gorabazar,

 PS- Berhampore, Pin- 742101

-Vs-

Opposite Party: 1.Branch Manager,

State Bank Of India, Lalbagh Branch

PO & PS- Murshidabad, Pin- 742101

2.The Branch Manager,

A D B Berhampore Branch,

State Bank Of India

P.O. And PS. Berhampore,

Dist. Murshidabad, Pin 742101.

Agent/Advocate for the Complainant                        : Smt. Bidishya Sarkar

Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1&2        : Sri. Satinath Chandra.

                       Present:   Sri Asish  Kumar Senapati………………….......President.                              

                                          Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay…………    …………..Member.

FINAL ORDER

   Asish Kumar Senapati, Presiding Member.

            One Badal Chakraborty (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Lalbagh Branch and Another (here in after referred to as the OPs) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.

   The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows:-

            The Complainant purchased one term deposit from the OP No.1 on 19.12.11 amounting Rs.1,00,000/- vide account No. 32092255217 and its maturity date was 19.12.16 and maturity value was 1,61,875/-. The Complainant also purchased another term deposit from the OP No.1 on 19.12.11 amounting Rs.1,00,000/- vide account No. 32092239908 for 5 years and its maturity date was 19.12.16 and maturity value was Rs.1,61,875/-. The Complainant transferred his account to the OP No.2 but the Complainant received a sum of Rs.3,16,490/- at his SBI account against maturity of those two term deposit in lieu of Rs.3,23,750. The Complainant was astonished to notice that in place of receiving a sum of Rs.3,23,750/-, he received a sum of Rs.3,16,490/- i.e. a less amount of Rs.7,260/-. The Complainant went to the office of the OP Nos.1 and 2 to get the deficient sum of Rs.7,260/- but the OP No.1 and 2 did not pay any heed to it. Ultimately, the Complainant sent a letter to the OP No.1 on 15.09.17 asking him to let him know the reason for less payment of Rs.7,260/-.  In spite of that the OP No.1 did not pay any heed. Hence, the Complainant filed the case praying for a direction upon the OPs for refund of a sum of Rs.7,260/- along with interest @ 10% from the date of maturity and a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation.

            The OPs contested the case by filing written version on 28.11.18 contending that the case is not maintainable. The OPs denied the allegations of the Complainant. It is the specific case of the OPs that the deficit balance as mentioned by the Complainant has been deducted from the interest portion of two term deposits as per mandatory rules of income tax and the Bank cannot refund the TDS amount to the Complainant. In several occasions the Bank officials explained fact to the Complainant but instead of submitting the claim before income tax department, he raised the allegations against the Bank. The Bank also submitted the documents  in support of deduction i.e. TDS and those documents are marked as annexure A,B,C and D. Necessary information regarding deduction of amount from the interest portion of the term deposits has been provided to the Complainant and the Complainant was also entitled to verify such deductions and payments of TDS from income tax department also against his PAN. There is no negligence / deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence, the complaint is liable to be rejected against the OPs.

            On the basis of the above version the following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case :

Points for consideration

1. Isthe Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?

2. Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?

3. Have the OPs any deficiency in service, as alleged?

4. Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?

Point no.1

The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the Complainant is a consumer as she hired services of the OPs for consideration.

The Ld. Advocate for the OPs submits that the complainant is not a consumer.

On going through the complaint, written version and other materials on record and on a careful consideration over the submission of both sides, we find that the Complainant is a consumer in terms of section 2 (I )(d) (ii) of the C.P.Act, 1986.

Point No.2

The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and the claimed amount is also within pecuniary limit of the District Forum.

The Ld. Advocate for the OPs submits that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

On a careful consideration over the materials on record, we find that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and this Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

Point Nos.3&4

            The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the OPs have  alleged that the deficit amount of Rs.7,260/- has been deducted as TDS and credited in the  account of income tax department but the OPs have no authority to deduct the said amount as TDS without permission of the Complainant. She argues that the Complainant used to submit 15G/ 15H form before the OPs on regular basis but the deduction of TDS is without jurisdiction and authority of the OPs. He prays for a direction upon the OPs for refund of deficit amount of Rs.7,260/- and compensation.

            In reply, the Ld. Advocate for the OPs submits that the Complainant had two term deposits and the entire maturity value had been credited in the account of the Complainant after deduction of  TDS as per rules. It is urged that the Complainant has failed to establish that he submitted 15G/15H form regularly for exemption of tax liability before the OPs. It is contended that the OPs have filed 4 TDS certificates/form 16A for the assessment year 2013-14 and 2014-15 to establish that TDS had duly been credited in the account of the income tax department against the PAN number of the Complainant and it is the liability of the Banks to deduct income tax as per rules, if no 15H/15G from is submitted by the customers.

            We have gone through the written complaint, written version, evidence of the Complainant, written argument of the Complainant and documents filed by both sides. Admittedly, the Complainant had no term deposits with the OP, Bank and the date of maturity of both the term deposits was on 19.12.16. Admittedly, a sum of Rs.3,16,490/- had been credited to the account of the Complainant instead of maturity amount of Rs.3,23,750/-. It appears from annexure-A ,B,C & D (Form 16A) submitted by the OPs that the OPs deducted TDS and the deductions have duly been credited in the account of the income tax department against PAN Number of the Complainant. The argument advanced by the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant that the tax deductions without intimating the Complainant is illegal and baseless, has no logic. In our considered opinion, the OPs are within their limitations to deduct tax as per rules. Hence, we find that the OPs have no deficiency in service for deduction of TDS from the interest of the term deposits of the Complainant, specially when the Complainant has failed to submit any document to establish that he filed 15G/15H forms regularly for exemption of tax liability.

            Considering the facts and circumstances, we find that the Complainant has failed to establish any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this case.

Reasons for delay

The Case was filed on 15.05.18 and admitted on 04.06.18 . This Forum tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act,1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day orders.

Fees paid are correct.

In the result, the complaint case fails. Hence, it is

                                             ORDERED

that the complaint Case No. CC/85/2018 be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest against the OPs without cost.

          Let plain copy of this order  be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand  /by post under proper acknowledgment  as per rules, for information and necessary action.

The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:

    confonet.nic.in

Dictated & corrected by me.

President

  Member                                                                                                   President.