Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/266/2016

Rajesh Garg - Complainant(s)

Versus

Central Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

Nidhi Garg Adv. & Dharinder Shukla Adv.

02 Feb 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	266 of 2016
Date  of  Institution	:	21.04.2016
Date   of   Decision	:	02.02.2017

 

 

 

Rajesh Garg s/o Late Shri Dila Ram, R/o House No.40, Sector 38-A, Chandigarh

             …..Complainant

Versus

The Central Bank of India, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

….. Opposite Party  

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

                                SH.RAVINDER SINGH             MEMBER 

        

 

For complainant(s)      : Ms.Nidhi Garg, Advocate

 

For Opposite Party(s)   : Sh.Ravi Sharma, Advocate

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

 

          As per the case, the complainant is having Savings Bank Account No.1019902332 and also having two Fixed Deposit Receipts bearing No.3040984686 and 3083005987, with the OP Bank.  It is averred that on both the FDRs, the total interest accrued to the complainant in the financial year was Rs.8943/-.  However, the OP Bank deducted a sum of Rs.2568/- on account of TDS from the account of complainant in respect of the interest accrued to him during the financial year 2014-15.  It is also averred that the OP did not make clear as to under what provisions the TDS has been deducted when the interest accrued on the FDR’s was less than Rs.10,000/-.  It is pleaded that the OP bank never furnished the complainant any details regarding the deduction of TDS nor he has been furnished Form 16-A.  Hence, alleging the said act of Opposite Party as deficiency in service, this complaint has been filed.

 

2]       The Opposite Party has filed reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that as per record, a sum of Rs.2019/- has been deducted as TDS during the financial year 2013-14 because the complainant himself failed to furnish his PAN No. inspite of public notice displayed at Branch Office.  It is denied that an amount of Rs.2568/- has been deducted as TDS, as alleged.  It is also stated that the details regarding the deduction of TDS and Form 16-A can be furnished only to those payees, who have furnished their PAN No., but the complainant did not furnish it. Pleading no deficiency in service, the Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

3]       Replication has also been filed by the complainant thereby reiterating the assertions as made in the complaint and controverting that of the OP in the reply.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire record.

 

6]       The complainant claimed against the bank i.e. Opposite Party that it wrongly deducted a sum of Rs.2568/- on account of TDS in respect of interest accrued to the complainant during the financial year 2014-15 on the savings bank account No.1019902332 as well as on the fixed deposit receipts.

 

7]       Against this allegation, the Opposite Party submitted that they never deducted any amount as TDS during the financial year 2014-15 as alleged by the complainant and claimed to have deducted an amount of Rs.2019/- as TDS during the financial year 2013-14.  It is claimed on behalf of the OP that they deducted such amount, as the complainant failed to furnish his Permanent Account Number (PAN) inspite of the public notice displayed at Branch Office. 

 

8]       Against the claim of the complainant that he duly supplied the Permanent Account Number (PAN), the Opposite Party contended that the complainant had not supplied the same and to corroborate, it placed on record the duly sworn affidavit of Sohail Ahmad, AGM & Branch Manager of Central Bank of India, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh, wherein he deposed as under:-

 

“2. That as per the record, a sum of Rs.2019/- has been deducted as TDS during the financial year 2013-14 because, complainant himself failed to furnish his PAN No inspite of public notice displayed at branch office. Copy of Details of Interest on FDRS and details of TDS is attached as annexure R-1.

3.  That the details regarding the deductions of the TDS and Form 16-A can be furnished only to those payees who have furnished their PAN No, but in the present case the complainant did not furnish his PAN No to the Branch of the OP bank, inspite of public notice displayed in the branch.”

 

9]       The above controversy regarding the non-furnishing of Permanent Account Number (PAN), got resolved during the pendency of the present complaint by supplying the copy of Permanent Account Number (PAN) Card to the Opposite Party.  In that eventuality, the only direction left with us, is to instruct the OP Bank to furnish the relevant Form NO.16-A to the complainant enabling him to get his due refund from the Income Tax Authorities.

 

10]      It is pertinent to mention here that during the proceedings of the present complaint, it was pointed out by the complainant that even the Opposite Party has wrongly calculated interest on one of the FDR NO.3040984686.  The above discrepancy was removed by the Opposite Party during the pendency of the complaint and thereafter, the Opposite Party placed on record letter dated 27.12.2016 stating that on 27.12.2016, it has credited less interest amount of Rs.1236/- in saving account NO.1019902332 of the complainant. It is again agitated by the complainant that he is also entitled for the interest on the amount, which the Opposite Party has wrongly calculated, for the period it remained unpaid.  We feel that this demand of the complainant is genuine one and also points towards the deficiency in service rendered by the bank.

 

11]      The above discussion leads to the conclusion that the Opposite Party should furnish fresh Form NO.16-A to the complainant for the financial year 2013-14 and 2014-15 enabling him to get refund of TDS, if any, deducted from his account from the concerned authorities and to pay the interest on the amount of Rs.1236/- from the date it became due till 27.12.2016, when it has been credited in the account of complainant.  However, for the deficiency in service and thrusting the present litigation on the complainant, the Opposite Party is burdened with Rs.4000/- to be paid to the complainant as compensation & litigation expenses.

         This order shall be complied by the Opposite Party within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which it shall also pay an amount of Rs.5000/- as penal cost.

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

2^nd February, 2017                                                                           Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER