BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.: 120 of 2017.
Date of Institution: 12.09.2017.
Date of Order: - 17.01.2019.
1. Ramesh Kumar Jain son of Shri Murari Lal, resident of House No. 1940, Sector-13, HUDA, Bhiwani.
2. Rekha Rani wife of Shri Ramesh Kumar Jain, resident of House No. 1940, Sector-13, HUDA, Bhiwani
….Complainant.
Versus
1. The Senior Manager, Syndicate Bank, Hansi Road, Bhiwani.
2. Regional Manager, Regional Office, Syndicate Bank, SCO 206-07, Sector-34A, Chandigarh-160036.
…...Opposite Parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection, Act, 1986.
Before: - Hon’ble Mr. Manjit Singh Naryal, President.
Hon’ble Mr. Parmod Kumar, Member.
Hon’ble Ms. Renu Chaudhary, Member.
Present: Shri Jagdeep Dhanda, Advocate for the complainant.
OPs already exparte.
ORDER:-
PER MANJIT SINGH NARYAL, PRESIDENT
Brief facts of the case are that complainant No.1 is having a saving bank account No. 827522049214 with the OP No. 1. It is alleged that the complainant No.1 has got issued a FDR from OP No.1 for Rs. 5,00,000/- on 14.8.2015 for one year and the OP No. 1 has issued instrument No. 8275405020777 in his favour having maturity value Rs. 5,41,216.08/-. It is further alleged that in the computerized record the FDR has been shown by the OP No. 1 in the name of complainant No.2. It is further alleged that on maturity the OP has deposited maturity value i.e. Rs. 5,32,776.23 in the account of complainant No. 1 after deducting Rs.8439.85/-. It is further alleged that when complainant No. 1 approached the OP No. 1 and asked about the deduction of amount, they told that due to non-availability of PAN of complainant No.2, the system has deducted Rs.8439.85 as 20% TDS on the amount of interest i.e. Rs.41,216.08/-. It is further alleged that complainant No. 1 vide application dated 22.8.2016 has requested the OP No. 1 to issue TDS certificate or to refund the amount deducted as TDS, as the OP No. 1 has wrongly entered the name of complainant No. 2 in system instead of name of the complainant No. 1. It is further alleged that the complainant No. 1 approached the OP No. 1 several times with request to issue TDS certificate or to refund the amount deducted as TDS, but to no effect. It is further alleged that a legal notice was also got served upon the OPs, but no reply was given by the OPs. Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Hence, the present complaint.
2. On notice, the Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank, Bhiwani was appeared on behalf of OPs, but thereafter no one appeared on behalf of the OPs and the OPs were proceeded as exparte by the Forum vide its order dated 27.2.2018.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant has placed on record duly sworn affidavit of complainant No. 1 and copy of documents Annexure C-1 to C-9 to prove his version and close the evidence.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant at length and gone through the case file carefully.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the complainant and having gone through the material available on the records, we are of the considered view that the complaint deserves acceptance, as there is deficiency & unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Complainant has successfully proved his case by placing on record copy of reply of RTI application given by OP No. 2 as Ex. C1, copy of FDR as C2, copy of account opening form as Ex. C3, copy of PAN of complainant No. 2 as Ex. C5, copy of account statement Ex. C6, copy of application dated 22.8.2016 annexure C1 and certain other documents Annexure C2 to annexure C4. From the perusal of the copy of FDR, it is clear that the FDR has been issued in the name of complainant No. 1. It is also proved on record that the copy of PAN of complainant No. 2 was also available with them. So, from the perusal of the documents placed on record by the complainant, it is clearly established on record that the OPs have issued FDR in the name of complainant No. 1, whereas they have entered the name of complainant No.2 in the computerized record. It is also proved on record that the OPs have deducted Rs.8439.85 as 20% TDS on the amount of interest i.e. Rs.41,216.08 and they have not issued the TDS certificate in favour of the complainant No. 2. Thus, the
OPs have failed in redressing the genuine grievance of the complainant despite requests made by complainants, which amount to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Moreover, the OPs have even failed to file the written statement before this Forum in the present complaint to rebut the case of the complainants. It appears that OPs have nothing to say in this case to controvert the case of complainants. Therefore, the case of the complainant remained unchallenged and un-rebutted. Therefore, in view of the circumstances mentioned above, the complaint of the complainants is partly allowed with costs and OPs are directed: -
i. To issue TDS certificate in favour of complainant No. 2.
- pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, physical harassment & hardship, due to deficiency in service on the part of OPs.
iii. To pay Rs.5000/- as litigation charges.
The compliance of the order shall be made within 30 days from the date of the order. In case of default, the OPs shall liable to pay the interest @ 18% p.a. on total amount as directed above vide clause No. ii & iii from the date of default i.e. after 30 days from the date of this order i.e. 17.1.2019. Certified copies of the order be sent to parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 17.01.2019.
(Renu Chaudhary) (Parmod Kumar) (Manjit Singh Naryal)
Member. Member. President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
