No. 18

This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

            The Complainant’s case in short is that on the assurance of the OP avail the service being the bonafide customer to invst6ment in fixed deposit in their bank and invested a sum of Rs.1,70,00,000/- (Rupees one crore seventy lakhs) only kin three different deposits being i) FD A/c No.01713031035031, amount of Rs.95,00,000/- dated  290.01.2013 matured value of Rs.1,41,57,150/- only, matured date 29.03.2017, ii) FD A/c No.10693031031869 dated 18.03.2013 amount Rs.25,00,000/- , matured value Rs.36,39,508/- only,  matured date 18.03.2017 and iii) FD A/c No.10693031032743 dated 29.04. 2013, amount value Rs.50,00,000/- , matured value Rs.72,79,015, matured date 29.04.2017. The said fixed  deposits matured on 29.03.2017, 18.03.2017 and 18.03.2017 respectively and the matured amount was credited to the bank of the Complainant with a very less matured amount  after deducting TDS of 10 percent on the matured value i.e. :

1. FD A/c No.01713031035031, the OP has paid only a sum of Rs.1,36,09,135/- only after deducting TDS 10 percent instead  and in place of Rs.1,36,91435/- only (difference amount of Rs.82,300) only,
2. FD A/c No.10693031031869, the OP has paid only a sum of Rs.35,06,636/- only after deducting TDS 10 percent instead  and in place of Rs.35,25,557/- only (difference amount of Rs18,921/-) only,
3. FD A/c No.10693031032743, the OP has paid only a sum of Rs.70,13,372/- only after deducting TDS 10 percent instead  and in place of Rs.70,51,113/- only (difference amount of Rs.37,741/-) only,

The Complainant communicated to the Branch manager of the OP time and again over telephone to clarify the ambiguity which is casting cloud over the reality but the OP showed a deaf ear for the reasons best known to them. The Complainant made written request dated. 15.06.2017 intimating the facts and requested the OP to return the balance amount, and the OP duly acknowledged the said letter and assured to pay back the balance amount to the Complainant, but till date no action has been taken by the OP to pay back. The OP did not even bother to send a reply giving clarification of less matured amount. Finding no other alternative the Complainant issued a legal notice dated 18.07.2017 through speed post with A/D,  the Ld. Lawyer calling upon the OP to look into the matter and to  communicate about the ambiguity created by the OP. In spite of the receipt of the aforesaid legal notice by the OP, the OP did not comply with the same

            Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances the Complainant stated that he is entitled to get refund of Rs.1,38,962/- only which has been wrongly debited from the matured value of the FD being i)    FDA/c No.01713031035031, FD A/c No.10693031031869, FD A/c No.10693031032743, and for a further claim of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lac fifty thousand) only in regard to the compensation, harassment, mental agony, legal expenses and non-service on the part of the OP as pleaded in the petition and as such for ends of justice. The ld. Forum may kindly direct the OP to return the deficit maturity amount as mentioned above along with a direction to compensate the Complainant as stated above, otherwise Complainant shall suffer insurmountable losses and injuries. 

            The cause of action of this instant application arose on and from when the Complainant sent a letter dated 15.06.2017 demanding the deficit maturity amount at office of OP.

            In the written version, the OP denied each and every allegation made in the said petition of complaint save and except what are specifically admitted hereinafter.

            With reference to the allegations the OP bank denied that the false misleading, deceiving and declining activities in the manner aforesaid of the OP have created depression, agony, insurmountable losses and injuries whereby the Complainant being a Senior Citizen have been harassed  to shame in as much as deteriorated  and distorted the mental peace and tranquility breaking the harmony and rhythm  of the family life of the Complainant  incurring heavy losses and plentiful damages and as such the OP have ulterior motive and malafide intention without having bonafide and clean desire. The allegation as made in the said petition of complaint, the OP Bank stated that the OP is not entitled to get any relief as alleged. The OP stated that deducted amount from the said fixed deposit is TDS amount and the applicant is liable to pay the same and accordingly the OP Bank had no latches and or negligence and or any deficiency of service. The OP Bank craved leaves to refer and produce the deduction of TDS documents at the time of hearing of the application The present application is filed without any cause of action and alleged cause of action made  in the said petition of complaint does not lie and the petition of complaint was misconceived and against the principle of justice. The OP stated that the Complainant is liable to pay the compensation to the OP Bank for unnecessary harassment and should bear the cost of litigations. Hence, prayed that the complaint against the OP, Oriental Bank of Commerce should be dismissed with cost for the ends of justice.

Points for Decision

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer under the OP;
2. Whether the OP is deficient in rendering promised service to the complainant;
3. Whether the complainant deserves relief.

Decision with Reasons

1)         Affidavit  of Anuj Prasad, Manager of OP Bank in the Evidence has been made  on the basis of available documents but not on the basis of some enquiry which should have been made after receiving complaint’s letter  dated 15.056.2017 and his Advocate’s letter dated 18.07.2017, he being the Manager of OP Bank, dealing with the instant case.

2)         We have perused copies of certificates of FD A/cs, affidavits of Evidence by both parties and the Annex, ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ filed by OP Bank with Evidence showing details of amounts deducted as TDSfor the period from 29.04.2013 to 29.04.2017 (For FDA A/c No. 10693031032743), 18.03.2013 to 10.11.2017 (For FD A/c No. 10693031031869 and 29.01.2013 to 29.04.2017 (For FD A/c. No.01713031035031).

3)         On close observation, it appears from FD A/c No…….5031, that rate of interest “9.10 percent” and maturity amount Rs.”1,38,15,836/-“ have been corrected by hand under signature of Bank official and seal of Bank to be “ 9.70 percent pa” and “Rs.1,41,57,150/-“ perhaps owing to the reason of the depositor being “Sr. Citizen” written by hand just above the TDR/MP/E 1301081. The OP did not deny such correction as well.

4)         There is no dispute in the Matured Amounts. There is no denial in the TDS  at the rate of 10 percent from the accrued interest4 before disbursement. The dispute centers round the amount of interest paid to the Complainant by OP Bank.

5)         Deduction of Income Tax  at the rate of 10 percent from the accrued interest is the mandate of the Income Tax Act, 1961, communicated to all banks by the RBI. Every citizen has to pay and every financial organization has to comply with it. But the bank has to follow the guideline of deductions of flat 10 percent tax on the accrued interest. For equity and justice, we must take this guideline for consideration of the case in hand, but we don’t bother what the bank has deducted.

6)         It is not the rule that TDS statements are made together for 4 years, as the OP Bank has done in the case. It is the rule that each year’s TDS must be completed within 31^st March of that year and TDS should be made on  each credit of interest provided the interest crosses Rs.10,000/-. We do not know whether the OP Bank provided TDS certificate (Form XVI / XVIA) to the Complainant each year. Neither the Bank nor the complainant focused any light in this respect by any way of filing copies of such certificates.

        So, keeping such guideline, we may proceed to determine the taxable and payable amounts under dispute as below in connection with stated 3 FD Accounts.

7)         (A)       FD A/c No. No.01713031035031:

                        Maturity Amount       :                       Rs.1, 41,57,150/-

                        Principal Amount     :                       Rs.   95,00,000/-

                        Interest accrued       :           (-)       Rs.   46.57,150/-

                        Income Tax  at the rate of 10 percent :     (-)       Rs.     4,65,715/-

Interest amount payable to Complainant  =        Rs.41,91,435/-

So, net amount payable to Complainant

                =Rs.95,00,000/-+Rs.41,91,435/- =       Rs.1,36,91,435/-

            (B)       FD A/c No.10693031031869:

                        Maturity Amount       :                       Rs.36,39,508/-

                        Principal Amount     :                       Rs.  25,00,000/-

                        Interest accrued       :           (-)       Rs. 11,39,508/-

                        Income Tax  at the rate of 10 percent :     (-)       Rs     1,13,951/-

Interest amount payable to Complainant =         Rs.  10,25,557/-

So, Net amount payable to Complainant

            =Rs.25,00,000/-+Rs.10,25,557/- =       Rs.35,25,557/-

            (C)       FD A/c No.10693031032743 :

                        Maturity Amount       :                       Rs.  72,79,015/-

                        Principal Amount     :                       Rs.  50,00,000/-

                        Interest accrued       :           (-)       Rs.  22,79,015/-

                        Income Tax  at the rate of 10 percent :     (-)       Rs     2,27,902/-

Interest amount payable to Complainant :=        Rs.  20,51,113/-

So, Net amount payable to Complainant

  = Rs.50,00,000/-+Rs.20,51,113/- =         Rs.70,51,113/-

8)         It appears, therefore, that total amount payable to the Complainant by the OP Bank after deducting flat 10 percent Income Tax, in connection with 3 FDs comes toRs.1,36,91,435/- + Rs35,25,557/- + Rs.70,51,113/- i.e.Rs 2,42,68,105/-.

            This indicates that the OP Bank paid less amount of Rs. (2,42,68,105/- - Rs.. 2,41,29,143/-) . = Rs.1,38,962/-. The Complainant has claimed just this amount being less paid by the OP Bank and he is justified for such claim.

9)         The Complainant is no doubt a consumer unde4r then OP Bank (as it invested big amount of money in the Bank) in terms of Sec 2(1) (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

            The OP Bank is deficient in rendering promised service in terms of Sec 2(1) (g) read with Sec 2(1) (o) of the Act, as it failed to pay to the Complainant the promised amounts, that to, even after the Complainant sent two letters dated 15.06.2017 and 18.07.2017. So, the OP Bank represented by the faulty officials, is greatly deficient, in rendering the Complainantto suffer loss of money and physical and mental harassment.

            So, the Complainant deserves some relief.

            In the circumstances of above detailed analysis, we are constrained to pass

ORDER

That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest against the Branch Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Gariahat Branch, in terms of Section 13(2) (b) (i) of the CP Act, 1986;

            That the Branch Manager.  Anuj Prasad of the OP Bank is directed to pay to the Complainant Rs.1,38,962/- being the unpaid amount in connection with 3 FD Accounts under dispute, with 7 percent interest from  29.04.2017 till date of actual payment to make up the financial loss of the Complainant, Rs.10,000/- as compensation for physical harassment and mental agony and Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost, within 30 days from the date of this order.

            That non-compliance of any of the above orders by the Branch Manager of OP Bank within the stipulated time of 30 says, will entitle the Complainant to put the orders into execution in terms of section 27 of the Act ibid.

Let copies of the judgement be handed over to the parties when applied for.