Sri Utpal Kumar Bhattacharya, Member

               Instant Appeal u/s 15 of the C P Act, 1986 has been filed by the Appellants/OPs challenging the Judgment and Order No. 9 dated 22/05/2017 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Kolkata-I (North) in Complaint Case No. CC/207/2016 allowing the complaint on contest with cost.

               The Appellants/OPs were directed jointly and severally to refund Rs. 1.2 lakh in favour of the Respondent/Complainant with compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for causing harassment and mental agony to the Respondent/Complainant.

               They were also directed to pay to the Respondent/Complainant, in the same manner, litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/-within 30 days from the date of the impugned order, failing which, as ordered, interest @ 10% p.a. would accrue to the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.

               Briefly stated, the facts relevant to the complaint, were that the respondent/complainant, a British national, presently residing at Bali, Indonesia used to frequent different countries including India in pursuit of his philanthropic initiative. He used to be represented in his cases on Indian soil by one Amit Kumar chakraborty of 11, Decres Lane, Kolkata-700069 as his constituted Attorney. The said respondent/Complainant, in order to meet up the cost for pursuing his initiative and for bearing his other expenses opened an NRE Account with the London Branch on an understanding that the amount in pound which would be deposited by him at London branch would be sent to India and the same would be converted to Indian currency and the complainant would get a tax free interest on the said amount.  The said Bank account was subsequently transferred to several Bank branches in India, last branch being Kolkata Main branch.

               The Complainant invested his accumulated amount of Rs. 32,50,000/-in a Term Deposit being TDR No. 692773 dated 27/01/2000 and the resulting interest accruing from such Term Deposit were being regularly deposited in the NRE Account. The Respondent/Complainant, in the month of January, 2015, received information from the Appellants/OPs that they would not be able to operate the existing Account any longer since the Respondent/Complainant was a Non Indian National. The Respondent/complainant visited the office of the Appellant/OP No. 2 on 14-01-2015 when he was asked to sign a request form to the effect of expression of his interest towards stopping the deposit of interest accrued on the Term Deposit amount in the subject NRE Account and transfer all his money to the newly opened NRE Savings Account. The Appellant/OP No. 2 did not explain to the Respondent/Complainant the consequential regulatory impact of changing the NRE Account to an NRE Savings Account and the Respondent/Complainant signed the said request form in good faith. Immediately after the new NRE Savings Bank Account being opened, the Respondent/Complainant, to his utter surprise, noticed that a substantial amount of Rs. 1.2 lakh was deducted from his said Account. This way the Respondent/Complainant was put to a heavy financial loss by the Appellants/OPs. The Respondent/Complainant visited the office of the Appellant/OP No.2 demanding the refund of the said deducted amount with no effective step from the Appellant/OP No. 2. The aggrieved Respondent/Complainant, finding no other alternative, filed the Complaint Case before the Ld. District Forum wherefrom the impugned Judgment and order had originated.                  

               Heard Ld. Advocates appearing on behalf of both sides.

               The Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellants/OPs defended his client, ruling out the allegation of provision of deduction in case of premature withdrawal of the TDS being not explained to the Respondent/Complainant.

               He pointed out that the Respondent/Complainant, a British national, residing at present at Bali, Indoneshia had filed the instant complaint delegating his power of Attorney, not notarized and with no consular recommendation, putting to question the acceptability of the Power of Attorney itself from legal point of view. As submitted, the petition challenging the maintainability of the complaint was filed before the Ld. District Forum. The Ld. District Forum, as alleged, heard and passed the impugned Judgment and Order without disposing of the said petition challenging the maintainability of the complaint.

               Moreover, an educated person, as the Respondent/complainant is, should not deny his liability of knowing the Rules and Regulations before volunteering for premature withdrawal of the TDS. On the instant occasion, as contended, the statutory deduction for premature withdrawal of the TDS was made, not the interest component as alleged in the complaint and that withdrawal was also made as per own volition and will of the Respondent/complainant as would reveal from the instruction to the Bank recorded in his own hand writing by the Respondent/complainant at running page 59.

               With the above submission, the Ld. Advocate prayed for the Appeal to be allowed setting aside the impugned Judgment and Order.

               The Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent/Complainant, per contra, contended that he rendered instructions in favour of the premature withdrawal of the TDS after being pursued to do so by the Appellant/OP Bank which actually had negated to maintain any longer the Respondent/Complainant’s 20 year old NRE Account. The provision for statutory deduction for premature withdrawal of the TDS, the plea taken by the Appellant/OP Bank on the instant occasion was never explained to him before.

               As continued, the Power of Attorney in question does not need any notarization as per Power of Attorney Act, 1982. The Respondent/Complainant, in pursuit of his philanthropic initiative, frequents different countries including this country and accordingly, the power of Attorney is given in Indian Stamp Paper and signed in India. The subject Power of Attorney, being a document executed in Indian stamp Paper and utilized in India, as contended, does not need any Consular Recommendation.

               The actions on the part of the Appellant/OP bank being an outcome of a hastily executed process and also beyond the norms prescribed by the Reserve Bank of India, The Complaint, as the Ld. Advocate concluded, has acquired merit in its favour for being viewed from a positive angle and the Appeal should be dismissed in affirmation of the impugned Judgment and Order.

               Perused the papers on record. It is difficult to admit that an educated person of good exposure, as the Respondent/Complainant is, who visits different countries in pursuit of his philanthropic initiatives and is having well acquaintance with the Banking norms because of his long association with the Appellant OP Bank, should plead ignorance about the deduction for premature withdrawal of the TDS. Expectedly, in addition to the explanation towards nature and kind of deduction claimed to have been made to the Respondent/Complainant by the Appellant/OP, the Respondent/Complainant himself had gone through the provisions of statutory deduction in case of premature withdrawal.

With the prevailing impasse, where the Appellant/OP claimed the provisions of statutory deduction in case of premature withdrawal were properly explained to the Respondent/Complainant and the Respondent/Complainant denying having received any such explanation from the Appellant/OP, the Bench is left with no alternative but to take cognizance of the convincing documentary evidence at running page-59 where the Respondent/Complainant has recorded a speaking instruction towards closure of the TDS A/C.

Further, the Banking norms at running page-64 make clear about the existence of the provisions of statutory deduction in case of premature withdrawal of the TDS.

The unregistered Power of Attorney, even if it was notarized, would have carried no potential force better than the existing one from the legal point of view. Since the transaction relates to the Account being maintained by the Respondent/Complainant with the Appellant/OP Bank for a considerably long period of time and the Power of Attorney, presumably executed on the Indian Stamp Paper within India, we do not find any reason for the Respondent/Complainant’s being a foreign national with his present location at Bali or Indonesia, a considerable factor to disown the Power of Attorney, particularly in view of the fact that the transaction itself has not been disowned by the parties concerned.

The facts and circumstances narrated above, led us to the conclusion that the Appellant/OP Bank did exactly what he was supposed to do as per provision and accordingly, there was no deficiency on his part in rendering services as alleged.

Hence, ordered that the Appeal be and the same is allowed. The impugned Judgment and order stands set aside and consequently the complaint petition also stands dismissed. No order as to costs.