FINAL ORDER/JUDGMENT

Presented by:

Minakshi Chakraborty,  Presiding Member.

 Brief facts of the case: This case has been filed U/s. 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the complainant stating that the complainant had deposited online his hard earned Entire Retirement Corpus / Survival Resource’ in HDFC Bank, Chandannagar branch, to get Monthly Pension / payout and the  pensioner opened online three nos. FD account with MIS option on 12.7.2020 pm 13.7.2020 & on 14.7.2020 respectively and in the month of November-2021 when the pensioner enquired about the procedure of overdraft from FD A/cs at bank branch, then only he came to know that HDFC bank had illegally  reduced the principal amount of his 3 nos. FD by Rs.3990/- in total on 13.11.2020 and since then the pensioner / consumer receiving lesser Monthly pension / payout from HDFC Bank and the pensioner/consumer feels proud being an Income Tax payer as he is also becoming part of Nation Building by paying TDS on the Interest earned against the 3 nos. FD and HDFC bank adopted the wrong, unscrupulous way while deducting the TDS which is completely illegal, violating the provision of Section-194A(1) of Income Tax Act-1961 and on 13.11.2020 the total aggregate-interest payable by HDFC bank (against all the investments in HDFC bank) for the Financial year 2020-21 reached /surpassed the threshold limit of Rs.40000/- (exactly Rs.42257) the moment when interest amount of Rs.4633/- payable by the HDFC bank on the same day (13.11.2020) because of this interest addition (Rs.4633) on 13.11.2020, threshold limit for TDS as per section 194-A(1) of Income Tax Act-1961, reached/surpassed Rs.40000/- (exact figure Rs.42257/-) on 13.11.2022 and TDS liability became Rs.3169/- on 13.11.2020 and on the same day i.e. 13.11.2020 “HDFC BANK HAD RS.4633/- (MONTHLY INTEREST AMOUNT) IN THEIR HAND PAYABLE TO THE PENSIONER/CONSUMER”.  

But, instead of deducting rs.3169/-(TDS) from the available interest amount (rs.4633/-) in the hand of HDFC bank on 13.11.2020 and thereafter crediting the balance interest amount i.e. rs.1464/-(rs.4633/- minus rs.3169) in the interest-payable-account.  HDFC bank preferred to violate the provision of sec-194-a(i) of income tax act intentionally by not deducting the TDS from the interest amount payable (rs.4633/-) on the same day / credit balance available in the savings / interest payable account (rs.5255.12) which is more than sufficient for the said TDS amount (rs.3169).

On the contrary, HDFC bank preferred to deduct TDS of rs.3169/- from the pensioner’s principal amount so that they can be able to reduce the monthly pension / interest amount payable to the pensioner/consumer every month.

HDFC bank credited Rs.4633/- the entire interest amount to the interest payable account on 13.11.2020 resulting in total credit balance, at that time in the interest payable account (06291530000075) was Rs.5255.12/- still HDFC bank didn’t deduct TDS amount of Rs.3169/- from the interest amount credited or available credit balance (Rs.5877.12) in the interest payable account, immediately after its credit to the interest payable account and rather HDFC bank furnished the false evidence to the banking ombudsman stating that there is no other source of recovering tax other than FD principal.  These deficient services, violation of sec-194-A(1) of Income tax act, adoption of Unfair trade practices, unethical business tactics prove that on a single day i.e. on 13.11.2020, HDFC bank was guilty of committing many offences towards the deficiency in service, twice as well as violation of legal provisions, twice apart from adopting unfair trade practices, unethical business tactics and HDFC bank suppressed the information of their deficiency in service & illegal action i.e. reduction of Principal amount of 3 nos. FD by Rs.3990/- since November 2020 and not communicated to the pensioner and immediately, the pensioner lodged his verbal complaint, followed by written complaint on 01.12.2021 to HDFC bank with a request for removing ‘Deficiency in Service’ through immediate corrective & preventive action (CAPA) to give justice to the pensioner and even after several visits (after lodging the complaint by the pensioner ) to the HDFC bank branch and subsequent requests for the above CAPA to remove the deficiency in service, they have replied unsatisfactorily on 03.12.2021 & 4.12.2021and intentionally didn’t implement  CAPA and final reminder for the compliance of CAPA to remove the deficiency in service given to HDFC bank on 24.12.2021 but HDFC bank did not give justice to the consumer and the complainant decided to approach to Hon’ble DCDRC Hooghly for getting justice within 3 months but compulsion forced him to lodge complaint to RBI, Ombudsman under RBI-Integrated ombudsman scheme,2021 where the complainant lost two months time and the complaint was lodged to RBI Ombudsman online on 23.01.2022 and the consumer failed to get justice from the RBI ombudsman due to Gross serious Lacunae in RBI-Integrated Ombudsman scheme 2021 and disappointed with the above, the gross, serious lacunae in RBI-Integrated Ombudsman scheme 2021 have been highlighted & subsequent remedial measures suggested to the top administration of India on 08.05.2022.

Complainant filed the complaint petition praying direction upon the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 300,000/- as compensation for gross deficiency of services & repetition thereof and to pay a sum of Rs.200,000/-for causing harm, injury to the consumer & his dependent family members and to pay a sum of Rs.3990/- for refund which  was deducted illegally from FD principal and refund of the total shortfall of monthly interest amount since December 2020 and  to pay litigation cost.

Evidence on record

The complainant filed evidence on affidavit which is nothing but replica of complaint petition and supports the averments of the complainant in the complaint petition.     

Argument highlighted by the ld. Lawyer

Complainant has filed written notes of argument. As per BNA the evidence on affidavit and written notes of argument shall have to be taken into consideration for disposal of the instant proceeding.

            Heard argument of complainant side at length. In course of argument ld. Lawyer of complainant side has given emphasis on evidence and documents produced by the him.

From the discussion hereinabove, we find the following issues/points for consideration.

Issues/points for consideration

1. Whether the complainant is the consumer?
2. Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the case?
3. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief?

DECISION WITH REASONS

Issue no.1:

     In the light of the discussion hereinabove and from the materials on record, it transpires that the complainant is a Consumer as provided by the spirit of Section 2 (7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.The point is thus answered in the affirmative.  

Issue no.2:

                        Both the complainants and the opposite parties are residents/having their office addresses within the district of Hooghly and the claims do not exceed the pecuniary limit of this commission. This point is thus disposed of accordingly.

Issue nos. 3 & 4:

Both the issues are taken up simultaneously for the sake of convenience.

Before going into the detail it has to be made clear that inspite of receiving the notice the OP did not turn up, for which this case is running ex parte against the OP vide order no. 4 dated 13/7/22.

The complainant deposited his entire retirement corpus in HDFC bank to get monthly pension and for the same the complainant opened three FD account with MIS option in the month of July 2020.The monthly pension out of those three FD were deposited /transferred to the savings account of the petitioner. As per the version of the petitioner in the month of November 2021 he came to know that HDFC bank without intimating the petitioner reduced the principal amount of three FD ‘s for which the petitioner started receiving lesser monthly pension.

Petitioner submitted various papers as annexure wherefrom it appears that HDFC bank sent one e mail dt. 3.12.2021 (annexure 6 page 23) to the petitioner stating that this is in regards to the query raised for deducting TDS from your principle amount of FD booked against your cust. Id 23134252. Bank has made the necessary changes in system where the TDS will get apportioned to each FD in proportion to its contribution to the interest on breaching the minimum threshold limit of Rs. 40,000/- instead of receiver of tax from single deposit. There were interest payments totaling to Rs. 37,632/- on fixed deposits for the period 1.4.2020 till 12.11.2020 in FY 2020-21. As the threshold limit was not breached till this date no tax has been deducted from any of these payments. On 13.11.2020 there was an interest payment of Rs. 4625/- in fixed deposit 50300443701561 under this cust. Id 32134252 which resulted in the threshold limit being breached and tax at the rate of 7.5% had to be deducted o the total interest Rs. 42,257/- which works out to Rs. 3169.27./-. Hence this entire tax has been apportioned to each deposit to its interest contribution on 13.11.2020. If the interest is already been paid out for monthly/ quarterly pay out/ reinvestment deposit then the tax recovery will happen from the FD principle as the interest has already been paid out and there is no other source of recovering tax. This has been communicated on the reverse on the FD advise also. The HDFC bank further sent an e mail dt. 4.12.2021 (annexure 6 pg 24) where they have categorically stated that there were interest payments totaling to Rs. 37,632/- on fixed deposits for the period April, 01, 2020 till November 12, 2020 in FY 2020-21. As the threshold limit was not breached till this date, no tax has been deducted on any of these payments. On 13.11.2020 there was an interest payment of Rs. 4625/- in fixed deposit xxxxxxxxx1561 under this cust id xxxxx4252 which resulted in the threshold limit being breached and tax at the rate of 7.5% had to be deducted on the total interest Rs. 42,257/- which works out to Rs. 3169.27/-. Hence this entire tax has been apportioned to each deposit to its interest contribution on November 13,2020. If the interest is already been paid out for monthly/ quarterly pay out/ reinvestment deposit then the tax recovery happed from the FD principal as the interest has already been paid out and there is no other source of recovery in tax. This has been communicated reverse of the FD advise for the same.

HDFC bank sent another mail dated 18/2/22( annexure 8 pg 30) to the petitioner with regard to Banking Ombudsman and stated that this is in regards to your issue raised with banking ombudsman for TDS being deducted from your fixed deposit principal [FD no. 50300443701561, 50300443948682 and 50300444261162]. This is to inform you that bank has made the necessary changes in system where the TDS will get apportioned to each FD in proportion to its contribution to the interest on breaching the minimum threshold limit of Rs. 40,000/- instead of recovery of tax from one single deposit. There were interest payment totaling to Rs. 37,632/- on fixed deposit for the period April 01, 2020 to November 12, 2020 in FY 2020-21. As the threshold limit was not breached till this date, no tax has been deducted on any of these payments. On November, 13, 2020 there was an interest payment of Rs. 4625/- in fixed deposit linked to Cust. Id 23134252 which resulted in the threshold limit being breached and tax at the rate of 7.5% had to be deducted on the total interest Rs. 42,257/- which works out to Rs. 3169.27/-. Hence this entire tax has been apportioned to each deposit to its interest contribution on November 13, 2020. As per record your tax recovery account no. is 06291530000075 and on 13^th November, 2020 the said account was not having sufficient balance to get the TDS being deducted. Hence TDS get apportioned to each FD in proportion to its contribution to the interest as on that date. Tax recovery  has been done from the FD principal as the interest has already been paid out and there is no other source of recovering tax apart from your savings account which was not having sufficient balance at that point of time. The terms and conditions for deducting TDS from fixed deposit principal has been communicated on the reverse page on the FD advise also.

After scrutinizing all the documents and after giving a meticulous study to the entire case record this commission finds that (Annexure2 pg 41) after examining the bank’s reply and documents attached with the same it is observed that tax recovery has been done from the FD principle as the interest has already been paid out and there is no other source of recovery of tax apart from the customer’s savings account which was not having sufficient balance at that point of time. Further bank has submitted the terms and conditions for deducting TDS from fixed deposit principle which shows customer was well aware about this.

It is worthy of mention in this regard that the complaint of the complainant before the RBI was also rejected under Clause 16 (2) (a) of the Reserve Bank- Integrated Ombudsman Scheme 2021 and it is further opined by the Ombudsman that “there is no deficiency of service in the service”.

Both the issues are thus disposed of.

Hence

ordered

that the complaint case  no. 106 of 2022 be and the same is  dismissed ex parte against the OP.

No order is passed as to cost.

Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.

The Final Order will be available in the following website www.confonet.nic.in.