BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

                                  Consumer Complaint No.  29 of 2016

                                 Date of institution:          11.01.2016

                                                    Date of Decision:             26.08.2016

1.     Bakhshish Singh son of Chanda Singh, resident of House No.5107, Pancham Society, Sector 68, Mohali.

2.     Smt. Dalip Kaur wife of Bakhshish Singh, resident of House No.5107, Pancham Society, Sector 68, Mohali.

                                             ……..Complainants

                                        Versus

1.     Punjab and Sind Bank, Phase-X, Mohali, District Mohali through its Manager.

2.     Zonal Manager, Punjab and Sind Bank, SCO 84-91, Bank Square, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh.  

3.     Chief Vigilance Officer, Punjab and Sind Bank, Bank Office, 21 Rajindra Place, New Delhi- 110008.

                                                              ………. Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

CORAM

Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Presiding Member.

Mrs. R.K. Aulakh, Member.

Present:    Shri Harbans Lal Sharma, counsel for the complainant

                Shri Dipinder Singh, counsel for the OPs.

(Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member)

ORDER

                The complainants filed the present complaint pleading that they have FDR Accounts Punjab and Sind Bank, Branch Phase-10, Mohali and details of which are as under:

                The complainants alleged that the Branch Manager Punjab & Sind Bank, Branch Phase-10, Mohali while preparing the 15G/15H Form regarding above FDRs in PAN No.BORPK4511G of the complainant Mrs. Dalip Kaur had mentioned the amount of FDR No.560207 dated 03.02.2011 which was for an amount of Rs.3,03,004/- recorded the amount of Rs.30,03,004/- (Thirty lacs three thousand four only) knowingly and willingly and as a result of which the income of the complainants was calculated at higher level against her actual income. Income Tax Officer, Chandigarh vide letter No.ITO/W5(2) CHD/15G/H/36/2012-13/3615 dated 02/05.08.2013 called information from the complainant Dalip Kaur regarding Form 15g/15H in above said P PAN No.BORPK4511G asking her to file return for the Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 with proof of deduction claimed under Section 6 A and source of income of the complainants for above years alongwith copies of bank accounts and copies of FDR’s. Further Income Tax Department issued another notice dated 24/27.08.2013 to the complainant Bakhshish Singh regarding non filing of Income Tax Return. The complainants filed reply to the above said notice in the prescribed proforma on 17.09.2013 but complainants were summoned again and again by the Income Tax Authorities and complainants were harassed and were under mental tension and pressure.  The Senior Manager, Punjab and Sind Bank, Mohali vide letter dated 17.08.2013 wrote to the Income Tax Officer, Ward 5 (2) Chandigarh that FDR No.560207 dated 03.02.2011 which was for an amount of Rs.3,03,004/- was written as Rs.30,03,004/- in place of Rs.3,03,004/-. Thus the Senior Manager Punjab and Sind Bank, Phase-10, Mohali has admitted his mistake but his mistake had caused great mental harassment, mental pressure and botheration to the complainants who are senior citizens and not keeping good health and had to face unnecessary harassment for three months without any fault. The complainants made a complaint to the Secretary, CVC, Satarkata Bhavan, New Delhi on 13.09.2014 in which they claimed compensation of Rs.1.00 lac from OP No.1. This complaint was forwarded to CVO, Punjab by Secretary, CVC, New Delhi vide letter dated 30.10.2014. The Zonal Office of Punjab & Sind Bank, Chandigarh wrote a letter to the Branch Manager Punjab & Sind Bank, Phase-10, Mohali on 15.05.2015 to provide all help to the complainants in this matter and also directed to obtain a letter of satisfaction from the complainants which complainants refused to sign because they had been harassed and tortured due to willful neglect and carelessness of the Branch Manager. The action of Branch Manager and Zonal office amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for which the complainants are entitled to damages to the tune of Rs.5.00 lacs. Legal notice dated 15.10.2015 to this effect is sent to the OPs but in vain.

                Lastly the complainants prayed for direction to the OPs to:

(i)     To make a payment of Rs.5.00 lacs as damages to the complainants for mental harassment and tension caused illegally.

(ii)    To compensate complainants of all the amounts spent on their medical treatment at Fortis Hospital, Mohali when health problems of the complainants were aggravated due to fault of the OPs.

(iii)   To tender an unconditional written apology through Zonal Manager and Branch Manager, Phase-10 Mohali of Punjab and Sind Bank.

2.             After service of notice, the Opposite Parties appeared through counsel and filed written version taking preliminary objections that no permission has been sought from the Forum for filing a joint complaint; that the complaint is barred by limitation; the complainants have not approached this Forum with clean hands; that as per practice Form No.15H is submitted by the persons whose income is not assessed to income tax and the bank neither asks for the form nor prepares it. It is the person who is maintaining FDR with the bank prepares the same and submit it to the bank after putting his/her signatures. In case Form No.15H is not submitted by the FDR holder then the bank is bound to deduct TDS on the amount of interest credited to the account of the FDR holder. The amount of FDR in Form No.15 H was not filled by the OPs. It is not the responsibility of the bank to ask for Form No.15H from the account holder.  On merits, the OPs have denied the allegations of the complainants and have sought dismissal of the complaint. 

3.             Evidence of the complainants consists of affidavit of complainant No.1 Ex.CW-1/1, affidavit of Surinder Kumar Ex.CW-1/2 and copies of documents Ex.C-1 to C-14.

4.             Evidence of the Opposite Parties consist affidavit of Shamsher Singh, their Branch Manager Ex.OP-1/1 and copies of documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-3.

5.             We have heard the arguments and also gone through the file of the case.

6.             The present complaint is filed by husband and wife jointly having a joint account and having FDRs in joint names with the bank. The mode of operation of the account and FDs was that either or survivor can operate this account. So being such a position, either of them or both of them are competent to file the present complaint because u/s 2 (1) (o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date), clearly includes banking service in the definition of ‘service’. They are competent to file the present complaint without seeking permission from the Forum U/s 12 (1) (c) the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) because Section 12 (1) (c) of the Act is applicable where there are numerous consumers having the same interest. In the present complaint there are neither numerous consumers nor this complaint is filed for the benefit of other consumers but it is a personal complaint of complainants who have joint and personal cause of action against the Opposite Parties on the ground that they have one joint account and FDs are in their joint names being husband and wife. So complainants are consumers of Opposite Parties as Section 2 (1) (o) of the Act clearly includes banking service as service. The complaint is filed within limitation because cause of action arose in favour of the complainants against the opposite parties does not expire but continues as per reply dated 27.11.2015 Ex.C-14 to the legal notice of the complainants wherein O.P. No.1 has specifically stated in Para No.12 of the reply that “Bank solved all the problems of your client.” Though Opposite Party No.1 claims that it has solved the problem of complainants but complainants have been running from pillar to post to resolve this matter. It means that ‘cause of action’ regarding resolution of complainant’s problem survived until and unless Opposite Parties specifically refuse or deny to resolve the matter. So in view of reply dated 27.11.2015 Ex.C-4 to legal notice of complainants the ‘cause of action’ continues and complaint is filed within limitation u/s 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date). Further in the same para No.12 of the reply dated 27.11.2015 which is Ex.C-14 to the legal notice, the Opposite Party No.1 admitted, “the act, which was done by the officials of the bank, was neither intentional nor willful, rather it was a mistake, which was later corrected by the bank official.” So Opposite Party No.1 admitted its mistake but denied that it was intentional or willful in any manner. So it can safely be concluded that there was mistake by Opposite Party No.1 but it was neither intentional nor willful. So Opposite Party not only committed mistake but also remained deficient in providing faultless, perfect and adequate service required to be provided under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date). Further Form No.15H which is Ex.OP-2 is duly stamped by the concerned official of Opposite Party No.1 was neither  filled up nor checked as required in the Form. So it also amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.1.

7.             Further the complainants alleged that they have suffered lot of health problems due to act and conduct of the Opposite Parties and, therefore, they have to spend a lot of amount (expenses) on the medical treatment for which they are entitled to be compensated by the Opposite Parties. The complainants failed to prove that they have suffered those health problems due to act and conduct of the Opposite Parties. In nut shell, the complainants have succeeded only to prove that Opposite Parties committed a mistake and remained deficient in providing service to the complainants for which they are entitled to be compensated. The Opposite Party No.1 is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.20,000/-  (Rs. Twenty thousand only) for mental harassment and tension and Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand only) for costs of litigation to the complainants.

                The Opposite Party No.1 is further directed to comply with the order of this Forum within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, otherwise it shall be liable to pay 8% interest per annum on the total cost awarded. The present complaint is hereby partly accepted. 

                The arguments on the complaint were heard on 19.08.2016 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced.                           

August 26, 2016.                                                      

                                                        (Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

Presiding Member

(Mrs. R.K. Aulakh)

Member