BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.: 280 of 2015.
Date of Institution: 30.09.2015.
Date of Decision: 24.09.2019.
Dr.Amrita Bhardwaj aged 57 years, C/o Bhardwaj Nursing Home, Court Road, Opp. Old Bus Stand, Bhiwani, Tehsil & District Bhiwani.
….Complainant.
Versus
1. State Bank of India, Clock Tower, Bhiwani, through its Branch Manager.
2. Asstt. General Manager, State Bank of India, Centralized Pension Processing Cell, 2nd Floor, Sector, Panchkula.
.…Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: - Hon’ble Mr. Nagender Singh, President.
Hon’ble Mr. Shriniwas Khundia, Member.
Present: Shri Vikas Gargi, Advocate for the complainant.
Shri M.L.Sardana, Advocate for the Opposite parties.
ORDER: -
PER NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT
The case of the complainant, in brief, is that she is having saving bank account bearing No.10588581525 with OP No. 1 bank. Upon, the retirement of complainant, a sum of Rs.18,96,500/- was paid by the department to the bank for disbursement to the complainant and the retiral benefits were paid/credited in the account of the complainant in the financial year 2012-2013 and the Opposite parties were to issue Form 16 to the complainant well within time but the same was issued on 25.03.2014 after a gap of almost one year. The Opposite parties had failed to pay tax to the Income Tax Department and due to this negligence, the Income Tax Department had charged interest of Rs.72,726/- from the complainant. The complainant requested the Opposite parties for reimburse of the said amount but the Op No.1 had only paid Rs.40,347/- and did not pay Rs.32,379/- on the ground that the complainant has earned interest on the FDRs. The act and conduct of the Opposite parties clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part. In evidence, the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C7.
2. On notice Opposite parties appeared and filed their joint reply wherein several preliminary objections such as maintainability, estoppal, cause of action etc. have been taken. Due to communication gap the tax amount could not be deposited into government account and consequently the complainant had to pay interest amount to the Taxation Department. The complainant had earned interest on Rs.4,10,919/- @ 8.5 % (TDR) interest to the extent of Rs.,36057/- (interest calculated by IT Deptt.), TDS @ 10 % plus education cess Rs.3606 = 72 ¼ Rs.3678/-, Net interest earned 36057-3678= Rs.32379/-, Loss Rs.72726 – Rs.32379/- = Rs.40347/-. The complainant has been compensated for the actual loss suffered by her. There is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite parties. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In evidence, the Opposite parties have tendered documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R5.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the case file very carefully.
4. Undisputedly, the complainant is having saving bank account with the Op No.1. It is also not disputed that Form 16 was not issued by the Opposite parties to the complainant and due to this a sum of Rs.72,726/- was charged by the Income Tax Department. It is also not disputed that the bank has refunded an amount of Rs.40,347/- out of the total charged amount. The Opposite parties have come with the plea that the complainant has been compensated for the loss suffered by her as Rs.40,347/- have already been paid to the complainant and the complainant was not entitled for the rest of the amount as she had earned Rs.32,379/- as interest on Rs.4,10,919/- @ 8.5 % (TDR interest) to the extent of Rs.36,057/- (interest calculated by the IT Department). The complainant has not denied this fact that she had not earned interest to the tune of Rs.32379/- from the FDR opened with the Opposite parties bank, therefore, she cannot ask the Opposite parties bank for the refund of the said amount, which was calculated by the IT Department as taxable amount.
5. Perusal of the case file reveals that the bank in their joint reply has admitted that due to communication gap the tax amount could not be deposited into the Government and the complainant had to pay interest amount to the Taxation Department and the complainant has been compensated for the loss suffered by her. The act and conduct of the Opposite parties clearly show that they have taken the matter in very casual manner without caring the interest of the consumers and due to this negligence, the complainant has to knock at the door of this Forum.
6. Keeping in view the above discussion, it is established that due to negligence on the part of the Opposite parties, the complainant has suffered harassment resulting into filing of the present complaint, therefore, the present complaint deserves acceptance. Though, it is for the Consumer Forum to grant compensation to the extent it finds it reasonable, fair and proper in the facts and circumstances of a given case according to the established judicial standards. Hence, we by allowing the present complaint direct the Opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation on account of harassment and negligence act done by the Opposite parties bank besides Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation. Compliance of the order be made within a period of 30 days. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 24.09.2019.
(Shriniwas Khundia) (Nagender Singh)
Member President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
Presnt : Shri Vikas Gargi, Advocate for the complainant.
Shri M.L.Sardana, Advocate for the Opposite parties.
Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of even date, the present complaint is allowed. Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.
Dated: 24.09.2019 Member President DCDRF, Bhiwani DCDRF, Bhiwani
