DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.
Complaint No. 247
Instituted on: 01.06.2017
Decided on: 25.08.2017
Nikhil Bansal son of Shri Surinder Pal Bansal, resident of New Grain Market, Near Ware House Road, Sunam, Distt. Sangrur (Punjab).
…Complainant
Versus
Oriental Bank of Commerce through its Manager, Jakhal Road Branch, Sunam, Distt. Sangrur (Punjab).
…Opposite party
For the complainant : Shri Dhiraj Jindal, Adv.
For opposite party : Shri Sumesh Garg, Adv.
Quorum: Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
Sarita Garg, Member
Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member
Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.
1. Shri Nikhil Bansal, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that the complainant availed the service of the OP by having a Fixed Deposit account number 5246341100213 by depositing an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as term deposit on 23.1.2012 for a period of five years and on maturity i.e. on 23.1.2017 the amount of Rs.1,61,875/- was payable. It is further averred that during the subsistence of the said deposit, the complainant handed over the PAN card details to the OP, but the grievance of the complainant is that the OP credited an amount of Rs.1,47,794/- in the account of the complainant instead of Rs.1,61,875/- and by this way deducted an amount of Rs.14,081/- on account of TDS wrongly and without any information to the complainant. The complainant immediately approached the Op for refund of the said amount, but nothing happened despite serving of legal notice dated 20.4.2017 upon the OP. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.14081/- along with interest and further claimed compensation of Rs.20,000/- on account of deficiency in service and further prayed to pay litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.3300/-.
2. In written reply filed by the OP, legal objections have been taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and that the complaint be dismissed with special costs. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant deposited the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in the shape of FDR on 23.1.2012 for the period of one year. But, it has been denied that there is no requirement of deduction of TDS. However, it is stated that the complainant did not submit the PAN card details and as such it is stated that the amount of Rs.14,081/- being TDS has rightly been deducted from the interest amount of Rs.61,875/- and the TDS amount was credited to the income tax department. It is further submitted that the complainant did not submit form number 15-H and 15-G with the OP. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.
3. The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of legal notice, Ex.C-3 copy of reply to the legal notice and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has tendered Ex.OP-1 affidavit and Ex.OP-2 account opening form and closed evidence.
4. We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite party and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.
5. It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant availed the services of the OP bank by depositing an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on 23.1.2012 in the shape of FDR for the period of five years and on maturity the OP was liable to pay an amount of Rs.1,61,875/-. But, the grievance of the complainant is that on maturity of the FDR, the OP paid only an amount of Rs.1,47,794/- and has further deducted an amount of Rs.14,081/- on account of TDS, which is said to be illegal one. On the other hand, the stand of the OP is that the complainant never submitted any PAN card nor he ever approached the OP to state that the TDS may not be deducted. But, we are unable to go with the contention of the learned counsel for the OP, whereas a bare perusal of the account opening form Ex.OP-2 clearly reveals that the complainant submitted the PAN card details at the time of opening of the account for preparing the FDR. It is clearly mentioned in the account opening form that at the time of opening the account of FDR, the complainant itself submitted copy of PAN card and ration card, as such we feel that the OP has not come to the Forum with clean hands by saying that the complainant did not submit the PAN card details. Further there is nothing on record that the Op ever called the complainant to submit form number 15-G and 15-H. The Op has produced on record only the affidavit and a copy of the account opening form. In the circumstances, we find that it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service by deducting the amount of Rs.14081/- from the maturity amount of the FDR of the complainant.
6. Accordingly, in view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OP to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.14,081/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of maturity of the FDR i.e. 23.1.2017 till realisation. We further direct the Op to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- on account of litigation expenses.
7. This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.
Pronounced.
August 25, 2017.
(Sukhpal Singh Gill)
President
(Sarita Garg)
Member
(Vinod Kumar Gulati)
Member
