BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.1619/2016

DATED ON THIS THE 2^nd March 2018

      Present:  1) Sri. H.M.Shivakumara Swamy

B.A., LLB., - PRESIDENT   

                     2) Sri. Devakumar.M.C.                   

                                                B.E., LLB., PGDCLP   - MEMBER

Sri M.C.DEVAKUMAR,

Member

1.     The complainant filed the complaint under section 12 of the C.P.Act 1986 against the opposite party, alleging deficiency in service and seeking a direction to change the term of the deposit to three years instead of seven years and to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- for the deficiency in service and dereliction of duty and damages of Rs.10,00,000/- for the mental agony with interest and cost of the proceedings.
2.      The complainant approached opposite party Bank, in order to deposit the consideration amount received by her in connection with the sale of immovable property, for a term of three years, to avail the income tax benefits.  She took the assistance of her Auditor to invest the money in deposit.  But the opposite party Manager deposited the amount for a period of seven years instead of three years, thereby the complainant was to suffered a loss to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/-.  As such, the complainant requested the opposite party bank Manager to alter the term of the deposit to three years instead of seven years, but in vain.  Even after issue of a legal notice, the opposite party not obliged.  Hence, the aggrieved filed the complaint seeking reliefs.
3.     The opposite party filed its version and denies the allegations as false.  The opposite party admits the deposit of Rs.43,00,000/- for a term of seven years under capital gain exemption scheme on 20.04.2015 and submits that, the complainant on understanding the terms and conditions explained to her, she affixed her signature on the relevant format to deposit the amount for a term of seven years, which is the maximum period permissible under the capital gain account scheme.  The allegation of signature obtained on the blank form and later it was filled up for a period of seven years in denied.  The complainant can foreclose the deposit, without incurring any loss for the period of deposit, if she creates any capital assets/accounts.  Thereby, there is no deficiency in service and hence prays for dismissal of the complaint.
4.     The complainant filed her affidavit evidence with several documents.  The opposite party extended interrogatories then same has been replied by the complainant.  The opposite party not lead its evidence, but relied on several documents.  Written arguments of complainant filed.  Heard the complainant’s counsel.  Perused the material documents on record and posted the matter for orders.
5.     The points arose for our consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant established the deficiency in service by the opposite party bank for depositing her amount for a term of seven years, because of which she suffered a loss to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- and thereby she is entitled for the relief sought?
2.  What order?

6.    Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :- In the negative.

Point No.2 :- As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

7.    Point No.1:- The complainant Auditor adivced her to invest the amount gained, by sale of her property, in capital gains exemption scheme for a term of three years, to avail the income tax benefits.  Accordingly, the complainant approached opposite party bank and appraised them about investment for period of three years.  An application for opening an account has been submitted by affixing her signature.
8.    The complainant alleged that, the opposite party official fraudulently invested the amount in seven years deposit scheme as against her request for investment in three years scheme.
9.    On realising the same, the complainant requested to change the term of the deposit to three years, anticipating a loss to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- but the opposite party failed make the changes in the scheme.  Hence, the complaint.
10. The opposite party vide their letter dated 08.03.2017, demanded the complainant to produce the deposit receipt with necessary instruction to close the same, but the complainant not furnished the same, till the date of filing the complaint.  However, the deposit amount is not taxable under Income Tax Act, upto three years from the date of deposit i.e. upto 20.04.2018.  On failure to submit the original deposit receipt with necessary instructions, they could not proceed to change the plan of deposit.  Thereby, the allegation of deficiency in service is denied and hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
11. On perusal of the material on record, the opposite party issued a deposit receipt for a sum of Rs.43,00,000/- on 20.04.2015.  The maturity date was 20.04.2022, with quarterly payment of interest at Rs.99,438/- at 9.25%.  The complainant submitted an application for opening an account under the capital gains exemption scheme-seven year deposit scheme (Form-A) duly affixing her signature.  Accordingly, depositing the amount, the opposite party issued a deposit receipt. However, the complainant to gain the income tax benefit, she could withdrew the deposit amount after lapse of three years from the date of investment to avail tax benefits or else she had the option to invest in construction within three years without depositing to avoid tax.  Even now, she is at liberty to change the scheme.  As such, the allegation of deficiency in service by opposite party is not justified.  Accordingly, the point No.1 is answered in the negative.
12. Point No.2:- In view of the above discussions in point No.1, the complainant failed to establish the deficiency in service by opposite party. Hence, we proceed to pass the following order:-

:: O R D E R ::

1. The complaint is hereby dismissed.
2. Give the copies of this order to the parties, as per Rules.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, transcript corrected by us and then pronounced in open court on this the 2^nd March 2018)