IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC/110/2022
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
19.10.2022 02.11.2022 13.07.2023
Complainant: 1. Asit Kumar Sinha Ray
S/o- Lt. Anil Kumar Singha Roy
Harisava, P.O-Jangipur, P.S.-Raghunathganj,
Dist- Murshidabad
Pin-742213
2. Purabi Singha Roy
W/o- Asit Kumar Sinha Ray
Harisava, P.O-Jangipur, P.S.-Raghunathganj,
Dist- Murshidabad
Pin-742213
-Vs-
Opposite Party 1. Circle Head,
Punjab National Bank, Murshidabad Circle,
26/11 Shahid Surya Sen Road, P.O.- Berhampur, Dist-Murshidabad
Pin-742101
2. Branch Manager
Punjab National Bank (Erstwhile United Bank of India)
Raghunathganj Branch
P.S.- Raghunathganj, P.O.- Raghunathganj, Dist- Murshidabad
PIN-742225
3. Branch Manger
Punjab National Bank (Erstwhile United Bank of India)
Jangipur Branch
P.S.- Raghunathganj, P.O. Jangipur, Dist- Murshidabad,
PIN-742213
4. Branch Manger
Punjab National Bank (Erstwhile United Bank of India)
Umarpur Branch
P.S. –Raghunathganj, P.O.- Ghorsala, Dist- Murshidabad,
Pin-742235
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : Self
Agent/Advocate for the O.P.s : Riya Roy
Present: Sri Ajay Kumar Das…………………………..........President.
Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.
Sri. Nityananda Roy…………………………………….Member.
FINAL ORDER
SMT. ALOKA BANDYOPADHYAY, member.
This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.
One Asit Kumar Sinha Ray & Anr. (here in after referred to as the Complainants) filed the case against Circle Head, Punjab National Bank, Murshidabad Circle & Ors. (here in after referred to as the O.P.s) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.
The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows:-
The Complainants opened term deposit accounts in 4 branches of PNB, one of Rs. 5,00,000/- in Raghunathganj, another one of Rs. 5,00,000/- in Jangipur and Rs. 5,00,000/- at Jotkaman Branches and two term deposits of Rs. 1,00,000/- each at Umarpur Branch all are deposited @ 11.10 % interest for the period of 10 years and the maturity value was Rs. 1494408.82/- for the deposit of Rs. 5,00,000/- and Rs. 298881.75/- for the deposit of Rs. 1,00,000/- of each occasion.
The Complainants were given Rs. 1394399.00/- by Raghunathganj branch, Rs. 1406211.00/- by Jangipur branch and Rs. 1416463.00/- by Jotkamal branch, though all the three Term Deposit accounts were kept for identical period of 10 years with identical rate of interest 11.10% and identical principal amount of Rs.5 lakh each. So, as per term deposit the Complainants are entitled to identical Maturity value of Rs. 1494408.82/- in each account.
Again the complainants were given Rs. 283257.00/- for one Term Deposit account and Rs. 280389.00/- for another Term Deposit account at Umarpur Branch, though both the Term Deposit accounts were opened with Rs. 1 lakh each for identical period of 10 years with identical rate of interest 11.10% and as per term deposit the Complainants are entitled to identical Maturity value of Rs. 298881.75/- each.
Being aggrieved the Complainants requested all the 4 Branch Mangers of P.N.B. and the Circle Officer of Mushidabad P.N.B. for his legitimate claim but all went in vain. Afterthat the Complainants complained to the Ombudsman, Reserve Bank of India, Kolkata vide Complain No. 202223023085830 the Chief Manager CRMD & IAD, PNB Circle Office Murshidabad through their emails dated 16.07.2022 and 19.07.2022 respectively and in reply the Complainants came to know that the PAN was not given in some TD Accounts and it caused the disparity on interest income and it is also informed that in non- PAN account 20 % TDS was deducted from their account and after merger of all customer IDs TDS has been deducted @ of 10 %. The Complainants stated that at Raghunathganj Branch and Jangipur Branch PAN No. is clearly mentioned and it was done on 28.06.2011 well before opening the TD accounts. So, the Complainant claimed the following amounts
Interest less given by Raghunathganj Branch: 1416463.00
(-)1394399.00
22064.00
Added upto date interest from the date of maturity i.e.
From 03.01.2022 to 03.09.2022 is 8 months @ 6% 882.00
22946.00
Interest less given by Jangipur Branch: 1416463.00
(-)1406211.00
10252.00
Added upto date interest from the date of maturity i.e.
From 03.01.2022 to 03.09.2022 is 8 months @ 6 % 410.00
106622.00
Interest less given by Umarpur Branch: 283257.00
(-)280389.00
2868.00
Added upto date interest from the date of maturity i.e.
From 14.02.2022 to 03.09.2022 is 6.5 months @ 6% 93.00
2961.00
36569.00
Along with Rs. 300000/- for compensation towards harassment and mental agony.
Defence Case
After due service of the notices the O.P. appeared but did not file the W/V.
Points for decision
1. Are the Complainants consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?
2. Have the OPs any deficiency in service, as alleged?
3. Are the Complainants entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons:
Point no.1
We peruse the complaint. The averments made in the complaint indicate that the Complainant is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as well as Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Point Nos. 2 & 3
Both these points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity of discussion.
Undoubtedly, the Complainants opened TDS Account in the 4 branches of Punjab National Bank. One for Rs. 5,00,000/- Raghunathganj Branch, another for Rs. 5,00,000/- in Jangipur Branch and one more Rs. 5,00,000/- in Jathkamal Branch and two TDS of Rs. 1,00,000/- at Umarpur Branch for the tenure of 10 years with the rate of interest 11.10 % per annum. As per the TDS Certificate issued by the different branches maturity value was Rs. 1494408.82/- against each deposit of Rs. 5,00,000/- and Rs. 298881.75/- against each deposit of Rs. 1,00,000/- but at the time of maturity the Complainants received Rs. 1394399/- from Raghunathganj Branch and Rs. 1406211/- by Jangipur Branch and Rs. 1416463/- by Jotkamal Branch and Rs. 283257/- was provided to the Complainants against the term deposit of Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 280389/- was provided for another term deposit against Rs. 1,00,000/- by the Umarpur Branch though both the term deposits were for a period of ten years with identical rate of interest of Rs. 11.10 % per annum.
After due service of the notice the O.P.s appeared but did not file the W/V to controvert the plea of the Complainants for the reason best known to him. So, the case proceeded ex-parte against the O.P.s vide Order No. 5 dated 10.05.2023 but fortunately the Ld. Advocate for the O.P.s appeared and took part in hearing of argument. Such being the position the argument was heard of both sides.
The Ld. Advocate for the O.P.s drew our attention to the documents filed by the Complainants dated 19.07.2022 of the Chief Manager P.N.B. namely Ranjan Kumar Shaw where it is stated: “In our observation that is the major issue for different maturity amount as you must be aware of the fact that account having PAN and not having PAN attract different rate of TDS.
Besides that, being an ex-officer of the Bank you must aware of the fact that maturity amount from Term Deposit account is always subjected to deduction of TDS. TDS amount is calculated in System and the amount to be remitted to Income Tax Department within 7th date of the following month. No manual intervention is allowed in this matter. Despite that you are claiming the TDS amount from us. If TDS has been deducted, the amount is deposited to Income Tax Department and if your taxable income is within the celling limit you have full right to claim the same from ITD. So if you have filled you returns timely throughout the period and your income bracket is not breached, you definitely have claimed the amount.
And in our email dated 17-07-2022, it was clearly mentioned that if the TDS amount actually not deducted from your account, the same amount would have attracted the compounded rate of interest throughout the tenure. But if TDS is deducted, the compound interest will not accumulate in your TD account and there will be a gap between Maturity amount and deducted TDS amount.”
Moreover, on 16th July, 2022 it was informed by the Bank that the Complainants had multiple customer I.D.s and PAN numbers were not feeded in all of the TDS Account lying with the different branches of PNB. In some customer I.D.s the Complainant had not submitted PAN instead submitted form 60 despite having PAN number. For that reason when the accrued interest amount surpassed the benchmark amount, TDS at the rate of 10 % deducted from the accounts having PAN in customer id and TDS at the rate of 20 % deducted from the accounts having Form 60 in Customer ID.
Later on Bank has started implementing Unique Customer ID, and after that all the duplicate customer I.D.s of the Complainant is merged into the Unique ID and since then the TDS has been deducted @ 10 % per annum.
As per the term deposits tax deduction details it is found each and every occasion 10 % of TDS has been deducted against each deposit.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the documents filed before us and the argument advanced by both the parties we are of the view that the deduction of TDS in the matured amount of the Complainant is system generated and no manual intervention is found in this matter and the deduction of TDS amount must have reflected in 26 AS for throughout the tenure for term deposit account in which PAN was feeded in CBS.
As TDS is system generated process so we find no deficiency on the part of the O.P.s. So, the case is liable to be dismissed.
Reasons for delay
The Case was filed on 19.10.2022 and admitted on 02.11.2022. This Commission 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.
In the result, the Consumer case is failed.
Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is
Ordered
that the complaint Case No. CC/110/2022 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.P.s but under the circumstances without any order as to costs.
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.
Member
Member Member President.
