Date of filing: 16.10.2019
Date of disposal: 05.06.2023
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
THIRUVALLUR
BEFORE TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law) .…. PRESIDENT
THIRU.P.VINODH KUMAR, B.Sc., B.L., ......MEMBER-I
THIRU.P.MURUGAN,M.Com.ICWA(Inter),B.L., ....MEMBER-II
RBT/CC. No.141/2022
THIS MONDAY, THE 05th DAY OF JUNE 2023
(CC.No.143/2019 sent from DCDRC, Chennai North)
Sri.Karunakaran,
S/o.Arumugam,
No.66, V.V.Koil Street,
Kuyapettai, Chennai 600 012. ……Complainant.
//Vs//
Canara Bank,
Rep. by its Manager,
Purusaiwalkam,
Chennai 600 007. .......Opposite party.
Counsel for the complainant : M/s.S.S.Rajesh, Advocate.
Counsel for the opposite party : Mr.Premraj, Advocate.
This complaint has been filed before DCDRC, Chennai (North) as CC.No.143/2019 and transferred to this commission by the order of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai and taken on file as CC.No.141/2022 and this complaint coming before us on various dates and finally on 02.05.2023 in the presence of M/s.S.S.Rajesh counsel for the complainant and Mr.Premraj counsel for the opposite party and upon perusing the documents and evidences of both sides, this Commission delivered the following:
ORDER
PRONOUNCED BY THIRU.P.VINODH KUMAR, MEMBER - I
This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service against the opposite party in Banking service along with a prayer to direct the opposite party to credit the balance amount of Rs.11,587/- of the fixed deposit account No.0970401003456/1 to the Saving Bank Account No.0970101012643 along with 9% interest from 19.05.2019 till the date of credit and to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and stress and to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards cost of proceedings to the complainant.
Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-
That the complainant is a small time business man who is running shop selling milk and other allied milk products for the past 18 years. He is the customer of the opposite party since 1985. He deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- in a fixed deposit on 19.05.2011 with the opposite party with an interest at the rate of 9% for a period of 96 months. The sum assured on maturity i.e. 19.05.2019 is Rs.1,01,093/-. On maturity, the complainant requested the opposite party to credit the maturity amount in his Savings Accounts. But to his shock and surprise, instead of Rs.1,01,093/- the opposite party credited only a sum of Rs.89,506/-. The complainant came to know about that when he updated the pass book on 03.07.2019. The complainant had given written request on 22.07.2019 to the opposite party seeking clarification for not crediting the entire amount and a detailed statement from 01.01.2018 to 20.07.2019. However, the opposite party neither complied the demand nor gave any reply for the said request from the complainant. The complainant issued a legal notice dated 17.08.2019 to the opposite party to credit the balance amount of Rs.11,587/- besides compensation. The opposite party neither complied the demand in the legal notice nor replied the same. Hence the complaint.
Crux of the defence put forth by the opposite party:-
The opposite party disputing all the allegations in the complaint interalia contended that as per Banking Rules and RBI guidelines, the Fixed Deposit Receipt has been accepted based on the agreed rate of interest and the terms and conditions of FDR transactions i.e. premature closure, calculation of maturity amount and deduction of TDS etc. The maturity amount is Rs.1,01,093/- and a sum of Rs.12,097/- has been deducted towards TDS for the interest amount. It is agreed terms and conditions between the complainant and opposite party and as per RBI guidelines and Banking Rules and Regulations that TDS will be deducted on the interest amount of the fixed deposit. Hence the opposite party is not liable to refund a sum of Rs.11,587/- and also any amount towards compensation to the complainant. The opposite party had not committed any unfair trade practice to the complainant.
On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and submitted documents marked as Ex.A1 to A4. On the side of the opposite party proof affidavit was filed but no document was filed on their side.
Points for consideration:
Whether there is any deficiency in service committed by the opposite party as alleged by the complainant?
If so to what reliefs the complainant is entitled?
Point No.1:-
It is the case of the complainant that the opposite party had withheld a sum of Rs.11,587/- at the time of crediting FDR maturity amount in his Savings Account. Inspite of repeated requests and follow ups, the opposite party had not credited the said amount in his account. Even after receipt of legal notice the opposite party failed to comply the demand made in the legal notice and hence the complaint.
To prove the case, the complainant deposed proof affidavit with 4 documents which were marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A4. Ex.A1 is the Deposit Receipt issued by the opposite party, Ex.A2 is the Passbook of the complainant, Ex.A3 is the letter issued by the complainant to the opposite party regarding clarification for not crediting the entire amount and Ex.A4 is the legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party.
Per contra, the opposite party contended that there is no unfair trade practice on the part of them. As per Banking Rules and Regulations, RBI guidelines and terms and conditions of the FDR, TDS has to be deducted on the interest of the amount of the FDR. Accordingly the opposite party had deducted TDS of Rs.12,097/- from the maturity amount of the fixed deposit. Hence the opposite party prays to dismiss the complaint.
To refute the claim of the complainant, the opposite party deposed proof affidavit without any document.
It is not disputed that the complainant had deposited Rs.50,000/- on 19.05.2011 vide FDR No.0970401003456/1 for a period of 96 months and the maturity date is 19.05.2019 and the maturity sum assured is Rs.1,01,093/-.
It is seen from Ex.A1 that the total interest payable and maturity value amount mentioned herein are subject to TDS as applicable on time to time. It has been clearly mentioned in the first page of FDR itself. Accordingly the opposite party had deducted TDS from the maturity amount and credited the balance amount to the savings account of the complainant. The said TDS amount will be refunded by the competent authority upon receipt of necessary forms and income tax returns submitted by the complainant.
We have carefully perused the pleadings and all the documents of both the parties we have come to the conclusion that the opposite party had acted as per banking Rules and Regulations and RBI guidelines and hence the opposite party had not committed any unfair trade practice and deficiency in service to the complainant. This point is answered accordingly.
Point No.2:-
Since we have come to the conclusion that there is no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the complainant is not entitled any of the reliefs claimed by him and the complaint deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly the complaint is dismissed without any costs. This point is answered accordingly.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost.
Dictated by the Member I to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the Member I and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 05th day of June 2023.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-II MEMBER I PRESIDENT
List of document filed by the complainant:-
Ex.A1 19.05.2011 Deposit Receipt issued by the opposite party for the fixed deposit. Xerox
Ex.A2 ................. Copy of the passbook of the complainant. Xerox
Ex.A3 22.07.2019 Letter issued by the complainant to the opposite party regarding clarification for not crediting the entire amount. Xerox
Ex.A4 17.08.2019 Legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party along with the acknowledgement card. Xerox
List of documents filed by the opposite party:-
-Nil-
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-II MEMBER I PRESIDENT
