West Bengal

Birbhum

CC/139/2015

Tarajyoti Bhattacharjee, S/o B.Ch.Bhattacharjee - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chief Branch Manager, Allahabad Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Self

31 May 2017

ORDER

J U D G E M E N T

Dr. Soumen Sikder,  Member

The petitioner Tarajyoti Bhattacherjee filed a complaint against the Chief Branch Manager, Allahabad Bank, Suri Branch and others.

The complaint, in short, is that the petitioner was one of the joint account holders of the term deposit account No. DDP65609/31/3066 and DDP65610/31/3067 under O.P No.1. The aforesaid two TD accounts matured on 29.11.2011. And the maturity value was paid on 27.12.2011 without any interest thereon. The petitioner on behalf of the account holders of the aforesaid two closed TD Accounts made an application by his letter dated 22.11.2013 before the present O.Ps No.1 and 2 seeking saving interest on the matured amounts of the two TD Accounts as the same were released by the bank 28 days later from the date of maturity. The O.Ps did not pay any heed. Lastly the petitioner made a complaint to the Higher Authority by a letter dated 17.08.2015. But that time the petitioner was also neglected. Being aggrieved the petitioner has filed the present case against the O.Ps.

Ld. Advocate for the O.Ps appeared and contested the case. He filed written objection on behalf of the O.Ps No. 1, 2 and 3 stating that the petitioner has deliberately suppressed and concealed material information. The DDP account holder approached bank for payment of maturity value on 27.12.2011 i.e. 28 days after maturity. Inspite of that the O.Ps paid savings interest for the period of 28 days. The account holders did not file 15G Form in the year 2009 and 2010. Inspite of that TDS has been reversed on the basis of the oral submission.

Both parties have filed certain documents. The petitioner has examined himself as PW. Written arguments have been filed by both parties.

Upon pleadings of the parties the following points are to be considered for discussion.

POINTS

1. Whether the petitioner is a consumer or not?
2. Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?
3. Whether the O.Ps have deficiency in service or not?
4. Is the petitioner entitled to relief/s as prayed for?

DECISION WITH REASONS

All the points being interlinked with each other are taken up together for discussion.

The petitioner was a joint account holder of the Term Deposit Account No.s DDP 65609/31/3066 and DDP 65610/31/3067 under O.P No.1 with the mode of operation of the said accounts as any one of the account holders or survivor(s). The said TDR accounts were opened on 29.11.2008 with the principal of Rs. 550000/- and Rs. 200000/- for three years. After maturity the payment has been made 28 days after the date of maturity, i.e. on 27.12.2011. The savings interest for 28 days was accrued but O.P No.1 did not pay it. Being one of the joint account holders the petitioner has claimed savings rated interest on the maturity value for 28 days and the bank has not paid it to the petitioner till the date of filing the complaint. So, the petitioner is a consumer under the O.Ps.

The aforesaid TDR accounts were matured on 29.11.2011.The payment was made on 27.12.2011. The petitioner submitted claim for saving rated interest for delayed payment. Lastly, he made appeal through letter dated 22.11.2013 and 17.08.2015 to O.P No.1, 2 and the Higher Authority i.e. O.P No.3. But the said authority did not take any step on the matter inspite of having their own machinery for redressal of such grievance. The petitioner has compelled to file the complaint to the Forum on 22.11.2015. The date of cause of action is 22.11.2013 in this complaint. The petitioner has filed the case within the statutory period. The complaint is not suffered from limitation.

Admittedly, the petitioner jointly opened two TDR accounts of Rs. 550000/- and Rs. 200000/- being No. DDP 65609/31/3066 and DDP 65610/31/3067 respectively on 29.11.2008 and matured amount was Rs. 761631/- and Rs. 276957/- on 29.11.2011. The petitioner has submitted DDP Form 15G for the year 2008. It is also admitted that the maturity amount has been paid 28 days after the date of maturity.

The O.Ps said in their written objection that the petitioner did not submit Form 15G for the year 2009 and 2010. On the contrary, the petitioner claimed in his evidence in chief that the declaration for non-deduction of tax i.e. Form 15G were also duly submitted for the succeeding years after 2008 till the maturity of the concerned DDPs. The O.Ps gave a statement of amount paid to the petitioner. It shows that TDS have been deducted first and then interest for 28days have been added. Surprisingly, we noticed that the maturity amount after deducting TDS and adding interest on it the amount had been payable Rs. 739607/- and Rs. 268657/- for the two DDPs but they have paid to the petitioner Rs. 761631/- and Rs. 276957/- i.e. only the maturity value of the DDPs. That means, they neither deducted TDS nor added interest for 28days.

These statements by the O.Ps reveals that the petitioner did not submit 15G Form for 2009 and 2010. If the maturity amount of the DDPs has been paid in full then why the O.Ps have shown that TDS for the year 2009 and 2010 has been deducted as per Govt.’s Guidelines? These contradictory statement supports the petitioner’s claim that he has submitted 15G Form during these three years. Regarding interest for 28days the O.Ps stated that they have paid interest for 28 days on the maturity amount. Interest calculated on maturity amounts are Rs. 3213/- and Rs. 1169/-. If these amounts be added with the maturity value total amount will be payable in case of DDPs 65609/31/3066 Rs. 764723/- and in case of DDP account No. 65610/31/3067 Rs. 278086/-. But they paid Rs. 761631/- and Rs. 276957/-. So it is clear that they did not consider the interest. Inspite of that they have claimed that interest for 28 days is already paid by the Bank.

From the above discussion it is evidently proved that the O.Ps did not pay the interest for 28 days but they admitted that interest is receivable to the petitioner. This is deficiency on the part of the O.P No.1.

The petitioner is entitled to get interest @ 5.5% for 28 days in addition to the maturity value (i.e. Rs. 3092/- + Rs. 1129/-) = Rs. 4221/-. He is also entitled to get Rs. 2000/- for litigation cost and Rs. 2000/- for harassment.

Proper fees have been paid.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

                                                that C.F case No. 139/2015 be and the same is allowed in part against the O.Ps.

The O.P No. 1 is directed to pay Rs. 4221/-(i.e. Rs. 3092/- + Rs. 1129/-) as interest, Rs. 2000/- for litigation cost and Rs. 2000/- for harassment to the petitioner.

The payment shall be made to the petitioner within one month from the date of this order failing which the petitioner shall be at liberty to execute the order as per law and procedure.

            Copy of this order be supplied to the parties each free of cost.