DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.249 of 16-03-2016

Decided on 28-06-2017

Santosh Devi aged about 62 year W/o Dev Raj R/o H.No.11, Ward No.6, Dharamshala Street, Goniana, Tehsil & District Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

Indusind Bank Ltd., Guru Kashi Marg Opposite HDFC Bank Near Bus Stand Bathinda, through its Branch Manager/Head.

.......Opposite party

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

Sh.M.P Singh Pahwa, President.

Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member.

Present:-

For the complainant: Sh.Sushil Bansal, Advocate.

For opposite party: Sh.Sanjay Goyal, Advocate.

ORDER

M.P Singh Pahwa, President

1. The complainant Santosh Devi (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite party Indusind Bank Ltd. (here-in-after referred to as opposite party).

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that she is holding saving account bearing No.100007360921 with opposite party. She was in need of fixed deposit/term deposit account 5/6 year ago and approached opposite party for the same. Opposite party assured to open F.D.R under 'zero' balance scheme being old account holder. The complainant was assured that she need not have to do any transaction or maintain minimum account balance in that saving account till there is fixed deposit/term deposit account attached with the saving account. On this assurance of opposite party, the complainant opened the account with it alongwith fixed deposit/term deposit account for amount of Rs.3 lakhs for 400 days on the basis of auto renewal at the time of maturity. Since then fixed deposit/term deposit of complainant, is auto renewing as per interest applicable on fixed deposit/term deposit. The fixed deposit/term deposit account of complainant was lastly renewed on 8.5.2014 with maturity date on 18.6.2015.

3. It is alleged that on 18.6.2015, the complainant was in need of her money. She asked opposite party to credit the maturity amount of Rs.4,95,402/- in her saving account, but to the utter surprise, when she checked her account balance after some days, her account balance was only Rs.4,88,893.13/-. She enquired from opposite party about the low balance in her account. The officials of opposite party revealed that an amount of Rs.6516/- was deducted from her saving & term deposit account (Rs.2280/- on account of dormancy charges and Rs.4236/- on account of T.D.S).

4. It is further alleged that the complainant has already submitted 15G/H form on dated 23.4.2014 and 12.5.2014 for the year 2014-15. As such, opposite party was not required to deduct T.D.S. Opposite party admitted its fault and asked the complainant to get the refund of T.D.S at the time of filing of the income tax returns. The complainant has alleged that this action of opposite party amounts to deficiency in service on its part. The complainant also asked opposite party that it was not required to deduct dormancy charges as she has been told that there is no need of any transaction or maintaining of minimum account balance in the account till there is fixed deposit/term deposit account attached with the saving account, but the officials of opposite party did not give her any satisfactory reply. On her protest, opposite party became ready to refund the amount illegally deducted on account of dormancy charges, but it has refunded only Rs.684/-. That complainant many times requested opposite party to refund the balance amount, but to no effect.

   On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. She has claimed Rs.50,000/- as damages in addition to refund of Rs.1596/- with interest @ 18% per annum and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.

5. Upon notice, opposite party appeared through their counsel and contested the complaint by filing the joint written version. In the written version, opposite party has raised the legal objections that this complaint is not maintainable. The complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands. She has concealed the material facts. She while opening the account with opposite party, has signed on account opening form, after understanding its contents. It is specifically mentioned under the signatures of the complainant that she has been informed to maintain average balance of Rs.2500/- for the account. She has violated the terms and conditions stipulated while opening her account. She has also undertaken to open fixed deposit of Rs.3 lakh for reinvestment type of F.D.

   Further legal objections are that the complainant has no locus-standi or cause-of-action to file the complaint. She is not 'consumer' qua opposite party. She requires elaborate oral evidence as well as cross-examination. The matter can be adjudicated only through civil court.

6. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant is having saving account with opposite party. It is further admitted that she made fixed deposit under the scheme of monthly recurring deposit with the option of automatic renewal maturity amount, but it is denied that opposite party ever informed the complainant that her saving account shall be 'zero' balance scheme.

7. It is asserted that the necessary tax was deducted by opposite party as per the statutory provision issued by Govt. of India. Every banker is bound by the guidelines issued by Govt of India. As such, the tax was rightly deducted and T.D.S certificates were duly issued to the complainant.

8. It is also asserted that the complainant can get the refund of the period for which she submitted 15 G/H form and for that period T.D.S was not deducted and period for which, no 15 G/H form was submitted, for that period T.D.S was deducted.

9. It is also pleaded that on the request of complainant, as a gesture of goodwill, opposite party waived off the amount as per its powers. All other averments of the complainant are denied. In the end, opposite party has prayed for dismissal of complaint.

10. Parties were asked to produce the evidence.

11. In support of her claim, the complainant has tendered into evidence her affidavit dated 16.3.2016, (Ex.C1); photocopy of account opening form, (Ex.C2); photocopy of term deposit detail, (Ex.C3); photocopy of letter, (Ex.C4); photocopy of account statement, (Ex.C5); photocopies of form No.16A, (Ex.C6 to Ex.C8 and Ex.C27 to Ex.C30); photocopies of form 15G, (Ex.C9 and Ex.C26); photocopy of form 15H, (Ex.C10); photocopy of interest certificate, (Ex.C11); photocopies of FDRs, (Ex.C12, Ex.C22 to Ex.C24); photocopy of customer account enquiry, (Ex.C13); photocopy of schedule of service charges, (Ex.C14); photocopy of account ledger enquiry, (Ex.C15); photocopies of account statement, (Ex.C16 to Ex.C21); photocopy of form 16A, (Ex.C25) and closed the evidence.

12. To rebut the claim of the complainant, opposite party has tendered into evidence affidavit of Vinay Kumar dated 26.4.2016, (Ex.OP1/1) and closed the evidence.

13. We have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the file carefully.

14. Learned counsel for complainant has submitted that the complainant has impugned deductions of T.D.S as well as dormancy charges. Opposite party has not denied deductions of these amounts. The complainant has got produced copy of form 15G, (C9) for the assessment year 2014-15, which proves that she used to submit form 15G. As such, opposite party was not to deduct T.D.S. It cannot escape from its liability only by pleading that the complainant has claimed refund of this amount from income tax authority. The complainant has also challenged dormancy charges, but opposite party admitted deductions of these charges. The account statement, (Ex.C16) reveals that on 1.1.2012, balance was 'zero'. F.D.R amount was credited to the account of the complainant on 25.6.2015 amounting to Rs.4,91,173.13/- and opposite party has debited the dormancy charges for the quarter of previous year on 26.6.2015 amounting to Rs.228/- per quarter for 10 quarters. Subsequently, opposite party has also given credit of dormancy charges for the quarters January 2014, June 2014, September 2014 and on 7.8.2014. This credit was given only for the reason that opposite party was not to deduct the dormancy charges as the complainant was not required to maintain the minimum balance. She has produced on record schedule of service charges, (Ex.C14). This document details the account holders, who are required to maintain the minimum balance and what charges are applicable in case of default in minimum balance. In case of account holder, having F.D of Rs.50,000/-, the complainant was not required to maintain the minimum balance. Therefore, this document proves that the dormancy charges were not recoverable from her. From both angles, this action of opposite party stands proved unjustified. Therefore, the complainant has been put to unnecessary harassment and mental tension. She is entitled to compensation as well as cost of litigation.

15. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party has submitted that in order to prove any deficiency in service, the complainant was to allege any negligence on the part of opposite party, but she has failed to allege and prove any negligence. She has got produced copy of account opening form, (Ex.C2). She has acknowledged that she has been informed to maintain the minimum balance of Rs.2500/-. This form was filled-up by her at the time of getting F.D.R in question i.e. F.D.R of Rs.3 lakhs. Therefore, despite having F.D.R, she was to maintain the minimum balance of Rs.2500/- in her account. Admittedly, she failed to maintain the minimum balance of Rs.2500/-. Therefore, opposite party is justify to claim the charges on account of her failure to maintain the minimum balance.

16. It is further submitted by learned counsel for opposite party that although, opposite party has given credit of some charges debited on account of default in making the balance, but it was just due to goodwill gesture. No legal right has vested in the complainant to claim refund of dormancy charges.

17. It is further submitted by learned counsel for opposite party that opposite party was bound to deduct T.D.S for the period for which no form 15G was submitted. The complainant has also not suffered any loss for this reason. She has claimed refund from income tax authority. Opposite party has been unnecessarily dragged into litigation. Therefore, the complaint be dismissed with compensatory cost.

18. We have given careful consideration to these rival submissions.

19. The complainant has claimed the following reliefs:-

    i) Refund of Rs.1596/- with interest;

    ii) Rs.50,000/- as damages;

    iii) Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.

    The complainant has also impugned the action of opposite party regarding deductions of T.D.S, but there is nothing on record to prove that she has submitted form 15G for the period for which opposite party has deducted T.D.S.

20. The main dispute is regarding deduction of dormancy charges. Of-course, as per account opening form, (Ex.C2), the complainant has acknowledged that she was informed that she need to maintain the average balance of Rs.2500/-, but at the same time, she deposited Rs.3 lakhs in the shape of fixed deposit/term deposit. The point is whether in case of term deposit, the complainant was required to maintain the minimum balance or not. She has got produced copy of schedule of service charges, (Ex.C14). This document proves that in case of fixed deposit of Rs.50,000/-, the complainant was not required to maintain the minimum balance because F.D was in lieu of maintained minimum balance. In case, the complainant was required to maintain the minimum balance, opposite party was required to claim charges regularly, but the account statement, (Ex.C16) reveals that opposite party has debited the dormancy charges on 25.6.2015 for the quarters June 2014, March 2015 and other quarters. Opposite party has also given credit of charges on 7.8.2015 for the quarters of January-March 2014; April-June 2014 and July-September 2014. This fact itself proves that opposite party was not required to claim dormancy charges in case of the complainant. Therefore, opposite party was deficient in service for deductions of dormancy charges.

21. For the reason recorded above, the complaint is party accepted with Rs.3000/- as cost and compensation against opposite party. Opposite party is directed to refund a sum of Rs.1596/- to the complainant with interest from 26.6.2015 i.e. from debit of this amount till repayment. The interest will be calculated at the rate admissible to saving account.

22. The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

23. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.

24. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record.

    Announced:-

    28-06-2017

    (M.P Singh Pahwa)

    President

     

     

    (Jarnail Singh)

    Member