DATE OF FILING : 20-03-2014.
DATE OF S/R : 21-05-2014.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 30-10-2014.
Lekah Chatterjee,
w/o. late Bankim Chandra Chatterjee,
residing at 20/01/17, Brindaban Mullick Lane,
P.O. Kadamtala, P.S. Bantra,
District –Howrah.
PIN – 711 101..-------------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.
- Versus -
State Bank of India,
Kadamtala Branch,
47, D.S. Road, P.O. Kadamtala, P.S. Bantra,
District – Howrah,
PIN – 711 101.---------------------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTY..
P R E S E N T
President : Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.
Member : Shri P.K. Chatterjee.
Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
F I N A L O R D E R
1. Complainant, Lekha Chatterjee, by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C .P. Act,
1986 ( as amended up to date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.p. to refund Rs. 38,052/-, to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for mental harassment along with other relief or reliefs as the Forum may deem fit and proper.
2. Brief fact of the case is that complainant’s husband, Bankim Chadra Chatterjee, since deceased, deposited in two STDRS being A/C Nos. 10345815713 dated 22-11-2001 for Rs. 2,00,000/- and 10345838344 dated 16-01-2002 for Rs. 1,00,000/- for a total period of 120 months each. And he used to submit 15H form to the o.p. which was required to be done under I.T. Department of India under Senior Citizen Scheme. Both the STDRS were held by him jointly with his son, Anjan Kr. Chatterjee. And after his death on 18-08-2007, the petitioner and his son became his lawful legal heirs. So, the petitioner and her son visited o.p./ Bank to transfer the said STDRS in their joint names and o.p. did so keeping the name of the petitioner as the first holder in those very STDR receipts just by striking out the name of her husband on 19-03-2008. Thereafter she was submitting 15H form as per the rule since 2008 till the maturity of those STDRS. But in March, 2011 when complainant went to o.p./Bank to collect 15H form, she was informed that a sum of Rs. 40,000/- more or less shall be deducted from the maturity value of two STDRS. So, on 25-04-2011 petitioner sent a letter to o.p. requesting them to pay her the full maturity value but on actual maturity dates i.e., on 22-11-2011 and 16-01-2012 for two STDRS, it was detected that a total sum of Rs. 38,052/- has been deducted by o.p. Accordingly to the complainant o.p. has done it arbitrarily and illegally vide Annexure dated 28-01-2013. So, the petitioner went to Banking Ombudsman vide Annexure dated 03-06-2013 & 28-08-2013 and o.p. also replied vide their letter dated 24-05-13 & 25-07-2013. But complainant, being totally dissatisfied and aggrieved, filed this instant petition alleging deficiency in service against o.p. Hence the case.
3. Notices were served. O.p. appeared and filed written version. Accordingly, case was heard on contest.
4. Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :
i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. ?
ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
5. Both the points are taken up together for consideration. We have carefully gone through the written version filed by o.p. and noted its contents. O.p. has contended, interalia, vide para 6 of their written version, that after demise of Bankim Chatterjee, the husband of the petitioner, o.p. advised the petitioner and her son to close those accounts and make fresh ones as banking system does not allow o.p. to just strike out one name and insert another name. But complainant did not follow the advice. So, in the banking system, STDRS remained as it was before the demise of Bankim Chatterjee, since deceased. And no Income Tax Rule regarding submission of 15H was followed. So, the procedure of deducting TDS was followed by the system and Rs. 38,052/- was deducted as per rule. Bank had no deficiency on their part. It is also alleged by them that after being refused by Banking Ombudsman, complainant has filed this petition which should be dismissed. Here we take a pause. On perusal of the xerox copies of STDRS, it is very much clear that someone very important official of o.p. just scratched the name of Bankim Chatterjee, since deceased, and inserted the name of the petitioner as the first holder. And that official of the o.p. did all these on behalf of o.p./Bank. He was definitely authorized to do so and did so as the authorized agent of o.p. /Bank. So, for every action on his part, o.p./bank is entirely liable. And the petitioner, as the first holder, submitted the 15H Form in every year after her husband’s demise vide Annexures. So, no plea of o.p. should e tenable in this respect which was stated by them in their letter dt. 24-05-2013. It is our common knowledge that the subscribers are just thrown at the mercy of bank officials which should not be allowed to be perpetuated any more. Accordingly, we hold o.p. is deficient in providing service to the complainant. So we are of the candid opinion that it is a fit case where the prayers of the complainant should be allowed. Points under consideration are accordingly decided.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 152 of 2014 ( HDF 152 of 2014 ) be allowed on contest with costs against the O.P.
That the O.P. is directed to refund Rs. 38,052/- to the complainant within one month from this order.
That complainant do get an award of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as litigation costs.
That the o.p. is further directed to pay the entire amount of Rs. 45,052/- to the complainant within one month from the date of this order i.d., the aforesaid amount shall carry an interest @ 10% per annum till full realization.
The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( Jhumki Saha )
Member, C.D.R.F., Howrah.
