DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.
Complaint No. 239
Instituted on: 25.05.2017
Decided on: 23.08.2017
Parshotam Lal Sharma son of Raja Ram Sharma R/O H.No.2059, Magzine Street, Sangrur.
…Complainant
Versus
1. Punjab and Sind Bank, Branch Patiala Gate, Sangrur through its Branch Manager.
2. Punjab & Sind Bank, Head Office, 2nd Floor, 21, Rajendra Place, New Delhi through its G.M.
..Opposite parties
For the complainant : Shri Amit Goyal, Adv.
For OPs : Shri L.K.Singla and
Mrs.Preetinder Jeet Kaur, Adv.
Quorum: Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
Sarita Garg, Member
Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member
Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.
1. Shri Parshotam Lal Sharma, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant is the consumer of the OPs by having opened a saving bank account number 00671000007169. The case of the complainant is that in the last week of March, 2017, the complainant consulted his income tax counsel for computation of his income and for filing return of the income tax for the assessment year 2017-18, who told that an amount of Rs.16,153/- had already been deducted as TDS and in the event complainant obtained a tax saver FDR for Rs.1,50,000/-, then he will not have to pay any income tax rather he will be entitled for the refund of TDS of Rs.13,800/-. As such, the complainant visited the OP number 1 on 30.3.2017 along with one Sandeep Kumar for getting TAX saving FDR of Rs.1,50,000/-, the employee of the OP number 1 got signatures on the form for getting the FDR, but the grievance of the complainant is that the OPs issued normal FDR instead of the Tax Saver FDR as required/applied for by the complainant. As such, after receipt of the FDR in question, the complainant approached the OP number 1 on 3.4.2017 and apprised that the OP number 1 issued normal FDR for Rs.1,50,000/- instead of Rs.1,50,000/- TAX saver FDR, as a result of which he could not get refund of Rs.13,800/- and further paid an amount of Rs.9176/- as income tax and total he suffered loss to the tune of Rs.22,976/- due to the negligence of the OPs. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to make the payment of Rs.22,976/- and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.
2. In reply of the complaint, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint and that the complainant has no cause of action to file the complaint. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant visited the bank on 30.3.2017 and told to Ritu Rani to obtain one FDR for Rs.1,50,000/- for the period from 30.3.2017 to 30.3.2018 and accordingly she filled form for the FDR for quarterly interests payable on FDR. It is stated further that since there was great rush on 30.3.2017 due to closing, she advised the complainant to collect the FDR after 3-4 days and after preparing the FDR, the same was given to the complainant. It is stated further that the FDR was prepared as per the instructions of the complainant as the complainant never asked for preparation of TAX saver FDR. It is stated further that the complainant approached the Op number 1 on 3.4.2017 for cancellation of the FDR and the same was cancelled. However, any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops has been denied in toto.
3. The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-8 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OPs has produced Ex.OP/1 and Ex.OP1/2 affidavits and Ex.OP3 to Ex.OP-7 copies of FDR form and closed evidence.
4. We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties, evidence produced on the file and written submissions and also 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 approached the OP number 1 on 30.3.2017 for getting issued the FDR for Rs.1,50,000/-. But, the grievance of the complainant is that though the complainant requested the Ops for issuance of the Tax Saver FDR for Rs.1,50,000/-, but instead of that the OP number 1 issued the normal FDR having interest with quarterly rests. The complainant after receipt of the FDR from the OP number 1 visited the OP number 1 immediately on 3.4.2017 and requested that the OP has wrongly issued the normal FDR instead of Tax Saver FDR and requested to issue Tax Saver FDR. To support the contention, the complainant has also produced the affidavit of one Sandeep Kumar Ex.C-1 to show that the complainant told the representative of OP number 1 sitting at the counter for obtaining Tax Saver FDR for Rs.1,50,000/- then she got signed the blank document from the complainant for preparation of the FDR. Ex.C-2 is the affidavit of the complainant to support his contention and further the complainant has produced on record Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4 copies of the Tax Saver FDRs allegedly got issued from the OP number 1 at the earlier stage. Further the complainant has also produced on record the copy of acknowledgement Ex.C-5 regarding filing of the income tax return whereby it is shown that the complainant suffered a loss to the tune of Rs.25,303/- on account of income tax. On the other hand, the stand of the OPs is that the FDR in question was issued to the complainant on his request only. The learned counsel for the Ops has further contended that on that date other FDRs were also issued such as Ex.OP-3 to Ex.OP-7. A bare perusal of all the forms show that the form submitted by the complainant Ex.OP-4 has not been got signed from the complainant by the OP on the front page of Ex.OP-4. There is no explanation from the side of the OPs that why the form in question was not got signed from the complainant on the front page of Ex.OP-4, whereas the front page of the form Ex.OP-3 produced by the Ops on record has been got signed from the deposited i.e. Satgur Singh, but there is no doubt that there is tick in the column FDR (Quarterly Interest) on the form Ex.OP-4. As such, the fact that the form Ex.OP-4 does not contain any signatures of the complainant creates suspicion more so when there is no explanation from the side of the Ops that why the front part of the form was not got signed from the complainant, as such we feel that this blank form has no value in the eye of law. Under the circumstances, we feel that the complainant has suffered a loss of refund of income tax and further deposited the income tax due to non issuance of Tax Saver FDR for Rs.1,50,000/-, which is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
6. In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.22,976/- as prayed along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 25.5.2017 till realization. The OPs are also directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- being the consolidated cost of compensation and litigation expenses. 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 23, 2017.
(Sukhpal Singh Gill)
President
(Sarita Garg)
Member
(Vinod Kumar Gulati)
Member
