Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.

                                                                    Complaint No. : 104

                                                                   Instituted on     : 27.02.2019.

                                                                   Decided on       : 11.03.2022.

Retd. Subedar Surajmal Suredia S/o Late Sh.Amar Singh, R/o Village Kheri Sadh, Distt. Rohtak, Now R/o 9-A, D Block, Old Khera Road, Opposite Rainbow Public School, Prem Nagar Najafgarh, New Delhi-43.

                                                                   .......................Complainant.

                                                Vs.

Punjab National Bank Civil Line Rohtak through Manager.

…..……….Opposite party.

          COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

BEFORE:  SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.

                   DR.SHYAM LAL, MEMBER

Present:       Complainant in person.

                   Sh. S.K.Manchanda, Advocate for the opposite party.

                                      ORDER

NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:

1.                Brief facts of the case are that the complainant was having FD in the bank of opposite party barring No.083800PU0006111 and the maturity amount of FD was Rs.107291/-. Complainant contacted the opposite party on dated 04.10.2018 for new FD and requested to create an F.D. of Rs.300000/- by taking the amount from the matured FD and remaining amount from the account of complainant. There was a need of Rs.192709/- for the new FD but the official of the opposite party deducted Rs.193444/- from his account. Complainant asked the opposite party for deducting excess amount of Rs.735/- from his account  and it was told that an amount of Rs.699/-has been deducted as TDS and Rs.36/- on account of interest of previous year and the same is not refundable. It is averred that complainant is a senior citizen and his income from interest upto Rs.50000/- is exempted from the income tax. Hence the amount has been illegally deducted from his account. Complainant requested the opposite party to refund the alleged amount but any heed was not paid to his requests. The act of opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that a strict action be taken against the official of opposite party for charging the alleged amount of Rs.735/- and to pay a compensation of Rs.50000/- on account of deficiency in service and litigation expenses to the complainant.

2.                          After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party appeared and filed its written reply. It is denied that for making F.D.R of Rs.3 Lakhs, there was deficiency of Rs.192709/-. On going through the maturity value of FDR(after deducting TDS as per Govt./Bank guidelines) it was shortage of Rs.193444/- and not Rs.192709/- as reported by the complainant. The complainant himself has stated that Senior Citizen are allowed rebate of Rs.50000/- in interest income from the budget of 2019. The Govt. guidelines before budget of 2018 are as under:- “Deduct TDS 10% of the Intt. Payable/accruable on all FDRs of intt. If it is more than Rs.10000/-.”

“- In budget of 2018 limit for Senior Citizen is Rs.40000/-. The system will deduct above Rs.40000/- from April 2019 onwards”. However from 2019-20 the guidelines are:-

“-Not to deduct Income tax on interest paid/accrued on all FDRs is Rs.40000/-.”

“-The TDS deducted at source Rs.735/- pertains to Budget before 2019(i.e. Rs.699/- 2017-18,   Rs.221/-  17-18 &     Rs.71/-  2018-19”.

The tax deducted at source is as per Govt./Bank guidelines and refund can be sought from Income Tax Department after filing the return.  The complainant was informed and also guided that his tax was deducted as per rules and if he was not eligible, he can seek refund by filing the I.T.Return. The opposite party has issued TDS certificate giving details of Rs.735/- deducted from FDRs to the complainant. Opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.  

3.                Complainant in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and has closed his evidence on dated 10.05.2019. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite parties tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, document Ex.R1 to Ex.R8 and closed his evidence on 13.12.2019.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully. Both the parties have also filed their written arguments respectively.

5.                 In the present case the grievance of the complainant is that opposite party has charged Rs.735/- in excess from the account of complainant at the time of issuing the FDR. On the other hand contention of ld. Counsel for the opposite party is that Rs.699/- has been deducted as TDS and a certificate Ex.R5 is also issued in this regard. The alleged fact is also proved from the interest certificate Ex.R2. The certificate itself shows that an amount of Rs.699/- has been collected on account of Tax Deducted as Source. Hence from the alleged disputed amount of Rs.735/-, Rs.699/- has been collected as TDS by the opposite party. But regarding deduction of remaining Rs.36/-, respondent has  not produced any document. In the present complaint, the complainant’s grievances are that respondent has deducted excess amount from his account. There is an opportunity with the respondent to prove that the amount has been deducted as per the instructions of RBI or rules and regulations prevailed at that time. The respondents proved that an amount of Rs.699/- has been collected legally on account of tax deduction at source but failed to produce any document that the amount of Rs.36/- has been deducted legally or as per law. In the present scenario, if an amount has been deducted automatically by computer, it can be provided in the form of a hard copy also. But the same has not been produced by the respondent before this Commission. Upon Ex.R2 & Ex.R6, a hand written calculation is mentioned, which cannot be believed in any manner. In this way  the alleged amount has been wrongly deducted from the account of complainant. As such there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant.

6.                In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.36/-(Rupees thirty six only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of deduction of alleged amount from the account of complainant till its realization, and shall also pay Rs.5000/.-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service as well as litigation expenses to the complainant. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision.

7.                Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

11.03.2022.

                                                          .....................................................

                                                          Nagender Singh Kadian, President

                                                                        ..........................................

                                                          Shyam Lal, Member.