ORDER
Per Sh. Rakesh Kapoor , President
The complainant is a pensioner of the state of Rajasthan. He has been maintaining his pension account at Gol Market Branch of Punjab and Sindh Bank (OP). It is alleged by him that he had earlier filed a complaint which was decided by this forum on 5.6.2014. He has alleged that the Government of Rajasthan had issued an order to revise the dearness relief from 80 % to 90% w.e.f. 1.7.2013 vide number F. 12 (3) / FD(Rules) 2013 dated 21.09.2013. He has alleged that even though the revised dearness relief should have been included in his pension account in September 2013 along with arrears , the bank had credited the same on 30.11.2013 after a period of 3 months. He has further stated that the Government of Rajasthan had again revised dearness relief from 90 % to 100% vide number F. 12 (3) / FD(Rules) 2013 dated 1-3-2014. He has alleged that even though the revised dearness relief should have been credited to his account in March 2014, this was credited on 30.6.2014 i.e. after a period of four months. This was in violation to the RBI guidelines dated 6.2.2006. He had taken up the matter with the OP vide letter dated 23.6.2014 but had not received any response even though the bank had credited interest @ 4% by crediting Rs 42/- on 2-7-2014 and Rs. 60 /- on 12.7.2014 as DA arrears. The complainant has alleged that the bank officials at the particular branch are deliberately discriminating against him and are causing harassment to him which is clear from the fact that its Paschim Vihar Branch had paid dearness relief to Retired Central Government Employees in October 2013 and April 2014. The complainant has further alleged that the OP had deducted TDS from his FDR accounts on 29-7-2011 at 46.73 % instead of 10 % as applicable by the Income Tax Department. He has alleged that he was given an interest payment of Rs. 2317/- whereas the amount of TDS deducted was Rs. 1082/- . This despite the fact that he had submitted form 15 H to the bank . He has also alleged that the accounts statement given by the bank with regard to the interest paid to him did not tally with form 16A , his passbook and the TDS Form. Hence, the complaint.
The OP bank has filed a written statement. Paras no. 1 and 2 of the preliminary objections to the written statement are relevant for the purposes of this complaint and are reproduced as under:
That the present complaint is not maintainable being an abuse and misuse of process of law, in as much as the complainant is in the habit of filing false and frivolous complaints without any justification just to harass the respondent. It is submitted that earlier also , the complainanat had filed a complaint case no. 302/2012 , against the respondent containing almost some allegations which was decided by this Hon’ble Forum vide order dated 05/06/2014 thereby imposing a cost of Rs. 10,000/- upon the bank and the complainant taking undue adavntage of the said orders have adopted noval way of extorting money from the respondent bank by filing the present and frivolous complaint.
- That the present complaint is also not maintainable as framed in as much as there has never been any willful deficiency of services on the part of the respondent at any point of time and the officials of the respondent bank performed their duties diligently in the ordinary course of banking business while dealing with the pension account of the complainant. It is submitted that there had never been any intention of the responent to pay the arrears late, however for the inconvenience caused to the customer has been compensated by the respondent bank by paying interest for delay period but still the complainant has filed the present complaint solely with an intent to harass, humiliate and hamper the long lasting relations. It is respectfully submitted that the complainant has himself admitted in para no. 3 of the complaint that there had never been any defficulty against the respondent in getting the pension. Hence the present complaint needs outright rejection being unsustainable in law.
The Op has contested the complaint on merits and had admitted that complainant was maintaining a pension account with it. Paras 4 , 5 and 7, 11 of the reply on merits of the written statement are also relevant and give the defence of the OP in the present complaint and These are reproduced as under:-
4. In reply to para no. 4 it is submitted that the respondent has been performing its obligations strictly in terms of the banking guidelines and there had been never any intentional or deliberate negligence or fault on the part of the respondent. It is submitted that admittedly the Rajasthan Govt. issued an order •to revise relief from 80% to 90% w.e.f. 1.7.2013 vide Notification dated 21.09.2013 and after receiving the information about the notification at the Pension Cell of the respondent, the respondent credited the DA arrears as soon as possible. It is submitted that the respondent, in compliance with the Notification for DA increase w.e.f. July, 201I., credited the amount of DA arrears on l3.09.2011, i.e. within a week’s time, hence there was no delay or default.
5. In reply to para No.5 of the complaint, it is submitted that admittedly the Rajasthan Govt. issued an order to revise relief from 90% to 100% w.e.f. 1.1.2014 vide Notification dated 1.3.2014 and after receiving the information about the notification at the Pension Cell of the respondent, the respondent credited the DA arrears as soon as possible. It is submitted that the respondent, in compliance with the Notification for DA increase, credited the amount of DA arrears on 04.06.2014, hence there was no intentional or deliberate delay or default in remitting the arrears of DA. It is however relevant to state that the complainant is ïn the habit of filing false and frivolous complaint inasmuch as there was and is no intentional or deliberate delay and rather on account of huge pressure of work, the arrears of DA could not be credited immediately. However, the answering respondent in order to compensate the complainant, the respondent has already paid interest @ 4% per annum as per bank guidelines on 02.07.2014 and 12.07.2014, but inspite of receiving the interest on the delayed payment, the complainant has filed the present complaint with malafide intent.
7. In reply to Para No.7 of the complaint, upon coming to know some slight delay in crediting the amount, the bank has already credited Rs.42/- on 2.7.2014 for three months and Rs.60/- on 12.07.2014 for four months, towards interest on delayed payment i.e. for 7 months @ 4% being charged by the bank on Saving Account as per banking guidelines.
11.In reply to para No.11 of the complaint, it is submitted that the respondent vide reply dated 25.04.2014 has already communicated to the complainant that the respondent has not deducted TDS @ 46.73%. It has further been communicated that no TDS was deducted for the first quarter of financial year 2011 i.e. 01.04.2011 to 30.06.2011, as the interest exceeded the prescribed limit on 29.07.2011, the TDS was deducted on the entire interest accrued/paid w.e.f. 01.04.2011 to 29.07.2011 @ 10% on whole amount from 01.04.2011 to 29.07.2011, hence there was no default or negligence on the part of the respondent to deduct the TDS , as such there is no wrong deduction as per I.T. Rules.
We have heard arguments advanced at the bar and have perused the record.
We must observe that having heard the learned counsel for the OP and having perused the reply filed on its behalf , we are not at all impressed by the behaviour of the OP. The OP rather than owning up its mistake has tried to show the complainant in a poor light. It has claimed that the complainant has adopted a noval way in extorting money from it by filing the present complaint which it claims to be a frivolous one. Yet , in its reply it has admitted that it had taken unduly long time in crediting the amount of DA arrears to the account of the complainant. Not only this, it had also given interest on the delayed credit. It has further admitted that it had failed to deduct TDS on account of interest in the first quarter of the financial year 2011 and had deducted the amount of TDS in lumpsum in the subsequent quarter. This despite the fact that the complainant had filed with it form 15 as a result of which no amount on account of TDS was deductable from the interest account of the complainant. It appears to us that the officers/ officials of the bank are oblivious to any sense of duty especially towards senior citizens drawing pension from the particular branch. Had it been so , the branch would not have made the same mistake after having suffered an order from this forum earlier as well. Needless to say that vide orders dated 5.6.2014, this forum had observed that the officials of the OP appeared to be indifferent to the instructions recieved in this behalf (revised pension) from the RBI. It was emphasized that there was a need to be more responsive to the rights of the pensioners to recieve the pension as well as its increase at the appropriate time. Our observations appear to have been fallen on deaf ears. No attempt was made to win the confidence of the customers / pensioners who were rather sought to be branded as extortionist. We, therefore again hold the OP guilty of deficiency in service towards the complainant and direct it as under:-
- Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for pain and agony suffered by him which will include the cost of ligitation.
- Deposit a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs one lakh only )with the Consumer Welfare Fund maintained at the level of the State Commision as puminitive damages.
The OP shall pay this amount within a period of 30 days from the date of this order failing which they shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum. IF the OP fails to comply with this order, the complainant may approach this Forum for execution of the order under Section 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Copy of the order be made available to the parties as per rule.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open sitting of the Forum on.....................
