Consumer Complaint No.59 of 2016

Date of filing: 04.4.2016                                                                         Date of disposal: 08.03.2017

Complainant:               Prabir Karmakar, S/o. Late Bimal Karmakar, resident of Radhanagar South Road, Bhushan Mukherjee Lane, PO., PS. & District: Burdwan, PIN – 713 101.

-V E R S U S-

Opposite Party:            Punjab National Bank, Burdwan Branch, represented by its Branch Manager,  having its office at B.C. Road, 75, NA, Burdwan, PIN – 713 101.

Present:      Hon’ble Member: Smt. Silpi Majumder.

           Hon’ble Member:  Sri Pankaj Kumar Sinha.

Appeared for the Complainant:      Ld. Advocate, Suvro Chakraborty.

Appeared for the Opposite Party:  Ld. Advocate, Ashish Kr. Paul.

J U D G E M E N t

This complaint is filed u/S. 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice as the Op has deducted wrongly TDS from his term deposit account and did not refund the same.

The fact of the case in brief is that the complainant opened three fixed deposit account with the OP vide A/c. being No. 319400DA00003025 and being No.  319400DA00005713 for Rs. 50,000=00 & Rs.1, 00,000=00 on 21.3.2011 & 28.3.2011 & another being No. & No. 319400DP00003473  of Rs. 26,796=00  for one years on 26.6.2013 respectively. The maturity dates of those accounts were on 05.4.2014, 07.9.2014 & 26.6.2014 respectively and the rate of interest were 9.25%, 9.50% & 9.00% respectively. The complainant also submitted PAN detail to the OP in proper time. The complainant further submits that on 05.4.2014 A/c. bearing No. 319400DA00003025 become matured and the Op paid Rs. 62,724=00 whereas the maturity amount was Rs. 66,033=00, i.e.  the OP deducted Rs. 3,309=00. Getting such fewer amount the complainant for several times requested the OP about the reason of such deduction but in reply the OP verbally stated that TDS has been deducted but they did not supplied any statement to the complainant in that regard. As such the complainant consulted with his Tax Consultants and came to learn that though the Op deducted Rs. 2,674=00 in the F.Y. 2011-12, Rs. 3,407=00 in the F.Y. 2012-13 and Rs. 903=00 in the F.Y. 2013-14 but as per 26AS of the Income Tax amount was NIL for the F.Y. 2011-12, Rs. 1,795=00 for the F.Y. 2012-13 and Rs. 1,011=00 in the F.Y. 2013-14. Thereafter the complainant through his Lawyer sent a notice to the OP but the OP neither takes any step to refund the amount nor give any reply of that notice. Lastly on 17.4.2014 the OP delivered the statement to the complainant after several languish request by the complainant. The complainant further submits that the OP instead of taking any step to solve the grievance of the complainant deducted Rs. 4,510=00 from the A/c. being No. 319400DA00005713 on 07.9.2014 and paid Rs. 1, 28,541=00. It is pertinent to mention her that the maturity amount of that F.D. A/c. was Rs. 1, 33,051=00. The OP also deducted Rs. 464=00 from the A/c. 319400DP00003473. It is pertinent to mention that if the OP furnished the statement regarding deduction of TDS at proper time the complainant would get refund of the said TDS from the I.T. Department by observing proper way. As the OP kept them mum the complainant suffered a lot. Moreover, the OP in the name of depositing Tax and TDS deducted money from the fixed deposit account of the complainant without giving any intimation to the complainant. These conducts of the Op is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. For such act of the OP it is liable to compensate the complainant. The complainant prays for directing the Op to pay Rs. 2,674=00 to the complainant by holding the OP liable for its conducts of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and to pay Rs. 20,000=00 towards mental pain, agony and harassment and a sum of Rs. 10,000=00 as litigation cost.

            After receipt of notice the OP contested the case by filing written version  wherein it is stated that the complainant has made this case by twisting all the real facts and making a false story against the OP, while the reality is that the complainant as the consumer came to this OP in respect of deduction of such amount for the cause of TDS transaction and this OP with a careful relation made the opinion to this complainant that the amount has been deducted for the cause of TDS debit and such has been deducted according to I.T. Act.  The OP further submitted that the complainant has made the F.D. at OP Bank, while the complainant has made three F.D. but during the time of making the F.D. the complainant has not submitted the PAN, as well as, 15G and/or 15H and such document has been field by the complainant on 30.6.2013, while it is well settlement fact, as well as, well known to all in respect of any transaction of any bank account PAN is essential documents, as such till the period of August, 2013 the quarterly TDS deduction has been made but after submission of PAN along with 15G and/or 15H such TDS deduction has been stopped since September, 2013, it is also necessary to mention that due to cause of non-submission of PAN, as well as, 15G and/or 15H, the deduction of TDS shall not shown in the 26 AS statement. It is also mentioned by the OP that according to approach of the complainant the OP supplied the TDS statements to the complainant very quickly on 17.4.2014 just after approach of the complainant. It is also submitted by the OP that as the system of CBS, the TDS deduction automatic generated according I.T. Act while the OP being a law abiding authority is duty bound to comply the system as well as the rule of I.T. Act.  The OP prays for dismissal of the complaint with cost.

Decision with reasons:-

            Heard the argument from the complainant as well as from the OP.

            Perused all the documents submitted by the parties as evidence on affidavit. The complainant states that he has submitted the PAN details in proper time not mentioning any specific date. But the OP has stated that the complainant has submitted his PAN details on 30.6.2013 which has not been debated by the complain ant by submitting any cogent document in this respect. As the OP reiterated that due to non-submission of PAN details in proper time, i.e. during the time of making Fixed Deposits before the OP, as well as, non-submission of 15G/15H, the Op has deducted the amounts as TDS. Thus the complainant fails to establish his case for deduction as TDS due to non-submission of PAN details as well as 15G/15H. Moreover, as the PAN details of the complainant was not available to the OP till 30.6.2013, such deduction by the OP has not been reflected in Sec. 26AS of the I.T. Department. Accordingly, the complainant loses his case.

            Hence, it is

O r d e r e d

that the Consumer Complaint being No. 59/2016 is hereby dismissed on contest against the OP without any cost.

Let plain copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per provisions of law.

Dictated and corrected by me.                                                               

                       (Pankaj Kumar Sinha)

                          Member

                         DCDRF, Burdwan

                                                         (Silpi Majumder)                     (Pankaj Kumar Sinha)

                                                                Member                                         Member   

                                                       DCDRF, Burdwan                         DCDRF, Burdwan