SMT. BANDANA ROY, PRESIDENT

            The synopsis of the complaint case is that the complainant is a retired Government Employee. The complainant made a TDR vide CIF No. 8036028803-0 for Rs. 3,20,000/- on 18.06.2011 for six years with the rate of interest of  9.75% pa with effect from 16.09.2011 to 16.09.2017 and the amount returnable was Rs. 5,70,381/-. But the complainant experienced that after the date of maturity the bank credited only Rs. 565,246/- in the S/B Account of the complainant being A/C No. 10460578493 on 18.09.2017. The complainant files 15 G/H with PAN card to the bank every year.  The Bank did not credit Rs. 5,135/- in the A/C of the complainant and on personally quarry the bank informed the said amount of Rs. 5,135/- has been deducted towards TDS. The complainant inquired in the office of the OP and learnt that no TDS has been deducted during the financial year 2013 to 2016 and  2014 to 2017. The complainant repeatedly requested the OP Bank for credit of the same missing amount, but the bank has done nothing on that account.

Hence, the instant case with the prayers as made in the complaint petition has been filed by the complainant on the allegation of deficiency of service on the part of the OP.

            The OP No.1 State Bank of India, Tamluk Branch   has contested the case by filing written version and claimed dismissal of the case on various grounds of law as well as facts. The OP denied  some material facts of the complaint.

            It is the specific case of this OP that an amount of Rs. 3,410/- is deducted towards TDS as per IT Rules and Regulations and no annual intervention or interference is done.  It is the case of the OP that due to non-submission of 15 G/H form during the year 2012-13, Rs. 3410/- has been debited on 31.03.2013 by software itself and subsequently that amount has been enhanced to Rs 5,135/-.

            On the above grounds the OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint case.                  

            On the pleadings of the parties as above, the following issues need be considered (1) whether the case is maintainable and whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for.

                                                  DECISION WITH REASONS.

Both the points are taken up together for discussion for the sake of convenience and brevity.

Perused the complaint, the written version of OP, the documents  and the questionnaires and reply filed thereto by the parties. Heard the submission of Ld advocate representing both the sides.

            There is no dispute with regard to the TDR of the complainant for a sum of Rs. 3,20,000/- opened on 16.09.2011   in the OP SBI, Tamluk Branch maturity whereof was on 18.09.17 and the maturity amount was Rs. 5,70,381/- . Photocopy of RDS /traces the deduction details  for the  Financial Year 2013-14 /Assessment Year 2014-2015,  for the Financial Year 2014-15 /Assessment Year 2015-2016, for the Financial Year 2015-16 /Assessment Year 2016-2017, filed by the complainant show that the transaction amount in PAN No. AKAPM 8235 D mentioned the amount of Rs. 3,20,000/- and as per case of the complainant TDS was deducted Rs. 5135/-. But copy  of the TDS interest details for the financial year 2011-12 filed by the complainant in the record shows otherwise.  Transfer of interest was paid regularly in the A/C of the complainant.   The OP stated that the OP deducted TDS of Rs. 3410/- as per IT Act and Regulations and in this regard no manual  intervention  or interference is done,  deducted by the soft wire itself.  Fixed deposit is done  in the name of the complainant Sri Mahadeb Manna and his wife  Mrs.  Gouri Manna and the complainant have to be proved by submitting  the Savings Pass Book of his wife about deposit of said deducted amount. The complainant also have to prove  that he has submitted 15G/H form  in the financial year 2012-2013 to the concerned bank, because to non submission of 15G/H form in the year 2012-2013  Rs 3410/- has been debited on 31.032013 by soft wire itself and subsequently that amount has been enhanced to Rs 5135/- at the time of maturity.

            The complainant has filed affidavit-in- chief stating that he made a TDR vide CIR No. 8036028803-0 for Rs. 3,20,000/- only on 16.09.20-11 for six years wit interest @ 9.75 % pa with effect from 16.09.211 to 16.09.2017 and on the date of maturity the amount payable was Rs. 5,70,381/-.  But the bank authority on maturity paid only Rs. 565,246/- instead of Rs. 5,70,381/-. The complainant asked the OP  about his grievance  and then the complainant came to know that TDS has been credited  from financial year 2013 to 2016 and Assessment Year 2013 to 2017 from the side of the OP.   The complainant verbally gave notice  to the OP  on 25.-09.2017 but the OP  did not make any response.  Hence, the complainant has prayed for Rs. 50,000/- for mental agony and harassment  and Rs. Rs. 20,000/-as litigation cost.

            The OP cross-examined the complainant by filing questionnaires. The OP asked the complainant  that whether the complainant had submitted 15G H with PAN card before the bank authority in every financial year and whether the complainant had submitted the pass book in the name of his wife Gouri Manna about deposit of said deducted amount ? The complainant answered that he submitted 15G H with PAN card  in every financial year. He also stated that he submitted Xerox copy of the savings pass book.  He further  stated that being a retired Auditor  of the government he has been harassed by the bank authority.

            It is clear from the submission of the OP that OP did not inform the complainant at the time of the deduction of the TDS and also did not inform the complainant that the complainant did not file 15 G H in the given year.  So it cannot be said very confidently on the basis of the OP’s statement  that the complainant did not file 15 G H during the financial year and for that reason Rs. 3410/- and subsequently enhance amount of Rs 5135/-  had been deducted from the scheduled matured amount

In view of the aforesaid discussion and considering the materials on record  we find that there is deficiency on the part of the OP  in rendering proper service to a customer, the complainant in relation to deduction of TDS on the Fixed Deposit amount of Rs. 3,20,000/- of the complainant.

Therefore, in our considered view the complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs/. 5135/-from the OP along with compensation of Rs. 3000/- for mental agony and harassment and also he is entitled to litigation cost of Rs. 2000/- from the OP.

Both the points are answered accordingly.   

           Hence, it is

O R D E R E D

That CC/ 591 of 2017 be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP SBI , Tamluk Branch.

The OP is directed to pay the complainant a sum of Rs 5135/- and also Rs. 3000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and also Rs. 2000/- as litigation cost within one month from the date of this order, in default the said OP would be liable to pay 10% interest on the awarded amount till its full realization. In default, the complainant will be at liberty to put this order into execution.

Let copy of the judgment be supplied to  the parties free of cost.