BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.220 of 2014

Date of Instt. 7.7.2014

Date of Decision :19.11.2014

Manjit Kumar Khosla aged about 67 years son of Late Sh.Dev Dutt Khosla R/o 104, Bikrampura Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

The Axis Bank, Ravi Tower, Preet Nagar, Sodal Road, Jalandhar through its branch Head/Manager.

.........Opposite party

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Present: Complainant in person.

Sh.Gurpreet Singh Adv., counsel for opposite party.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite party on the averments that he alongwith his wife Mrs.Meena Khosla held FDRs with opposite party, on either or surviver basis. The FDRs duly submitted to the opposite party for encashment on respective dates of maturity. The details of the said FDRs as below:-

i) FDR bearing A/C No.912040059332345 for Rs.37,000/- maturing on 12.5.2014 with a maturity value of Rs.42,752/-.

ii) FDR bearing A/C No.912040059314761 for Rs.18,000/- maturing on 12.5.2014 with a maturity value of Rs.20798/-.

iii) FDR bearing A/C No.91204001292901 for Rs.37,000/- maturing on 9.5.2014 with a maturity value of Rs.42,752/-.

iv) FDR bearing A/C No.9120400311445 for Rs.18,000/- maturing on 12.5.2014 with a maturity value of Rs.20,798/-.

v) FDR bearing A/C No.912040059012724 for Rs.37,000/- maturing on 9.5.2014 with a maturity value of Rs.42,752/-.

2. It is further alleged that opposite party refused to make the payment of FDRs mentioned at serial number (i) and (ii). The opposite party made short payment to the tune of Rs.183/- with delay of 4 days pertaining to FDR mentioned at serial No.iii. It further made short payment to the tune of Rs.89/- in respect of FDR mentioned at serial No.iv. It further made short payment to the tune of Rs.1763/- for FDR mentioned at serial No.v. The opposite party was asked to make good for the financial loss vide letter dated 15.5.2014. A notice was also served upon the opposite party on 2.6.2014. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite party to make payment of Rs.42752/-, Rs.20798/-, Rs.183/-, Rs.89/- and Rs.1763/-, total Rs.65585/- together with interest from the date of maturity till the date of payment. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

3. Upon notice, opposite party appeared and filed a written reply pleading that the FDRs as and when submitted by the complainant were encashed by the opposite party. There never existed any FDR No.91204001292901. However the complainant had already got encashed the FDRs which were due for encashment. It is absolutely incorrect that the opposite party had failed to make the payment against the FDR No.912040059332345. As a mater of fact, the said FDR was generated on 12.11.2012 but as per the request of the complainant the same was to be generated on 9.11.2012, therefore after getting the approval from the authorized officer, the said FDR was liquidated and a new FDR No.91304001292901 was generated from prior date i.e 9.11.2012, therefore since the said FDR No.912040059332345 got converted into FDR No.91304001292901 and the said FDR was encashed on 13.5.2014 when the complainant had approached the opposite party for encashment, therefore question of encashing the FDR No.912040059332345 does not arise. It is absolutely incorrect that the opposite party had failed to make the payment against the FDR No.912040059314761. As a matter of fact, the said FDR was generated on 12.11.2012 but as per the request of the complainant the same was to be generated on 9.11.2012, therefore after getting the approval from the authorized officer, the said FDR was liquidated and a new FDR No.912040066138666 was generated from prior date i.e 9.11.2012, therefore since the said FDR No.912040059314761 got converted into FDR No.912040066138666 and the said FDR was encashed on 9.5.2014 when the complainant had approached the opposite party for encashment, therefore question of encashing the FDR No.912040059314761 does not arise. As stated above there is no FDR bearing No.912040001292901 in the name of the complainant as alleged by the complainant. However there existed a FDR No.913040001292901 which was in the name of Mrs.Meena Khosla and the same was encashed and as per provisions of section 206AA(1) of the Income Tax Act, TDS amounting to Rs.183/- was deducted from interest payable to Mrs.Meena Khosla taking into consideration the total amount of interest earned by Mrs.Mena Khosla in the relevant financial year. The payment of Rs.89/- as stated to have been deducted is on account of Tax deducted at Source as per the provisions of Income Tax Act taking into consideration the total amount of interest earned by the complainant in the relevant financial year. The payment of Rs.1763/- as stated to have been deducted is on account of Tax deducted at Source as per the provisions of Income Tax Act taking into consideration the total amount of interest earned by the complainant into the relevant financial year. The complainant had failed to provide the opposite party the Pan number as requested by the opposite party. Therefore the complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct to file the present complaint. The opposite party had already explained the complainant vide its letter dated 27.6.2014 that his PAN is not updated but till date the complainant had failed to provide the Pan numbers, therefore there arises no question of issuing TDS certificate in the absence of PAN number. The complainant had even failed to mention the reason for not furnishing the PAN number as was requested by the opposite party verbally as well as vide letter dated 7.6.2014 and 27.6.2014. It denied other material averments of the complaint.

4. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.C10 along with copies of documents Ex. C1 to C9 and closed evidence.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.OPA alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP19 and closed evidence.

6. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard complainant in person and learned counsel for opposite party.

7. The main dispute between the parties is regarding non payment of FDRs mentioned at serial No.(i) and (iii) of para(c) of the complaint. The version of the opposite party bank is that as a matter of fact, the said FDRs were generated on 12.11.2012 but as per the request of the complainant the same were to be generated on 9.11.2012, therefore after getting the approval from the authorized person, the said FDRs were liquidated and new FDRs with prior date i.e 9.11.2012 were generated and same were got enchased by the complainant. Complainant contended that FDRs Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2 are different then the alleged by the opposite party bank. So main dispute involved in the present case involves disputed question of facts which requires detailed evidence and inquiry. The other short payments alleged by the complainant are on account of TDS as per instruction and rules of the Income Tax Department. Where the disputed question of facts is involved the appropriate forum is civil court.

8. In Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd Vs. Munimahes Patel 2006(3) Apex Court Judgments 365 (S.C), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

10. "Proceedings before the commission are essentially summary in nature and adjudication of issues which involve disputed factual questions should not be adjudicated. It is to be noted that Commission accepted that insured was not a teacher. Complainant raised dispute about genuineness of the documents(i.e proposal forms produced by the appellant).

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

11. The nature of the proceedings before the Commission as noted above, are essentially in summary nature. The factual position was required to be established by documents. Commission was required to examine whether in view of the disputed facts it would exercise the jurisdiction. The State Commission was right in its view that the complex factual position requires that the matter should be examined by an appropriate Court of Law and not by the Commission".

8. The ratio of this authority is applicable on the facts of the present case. In view of above discussion, the complainant is relegated to Civil Court for redressal of his grievance and the present complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs . Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under the rules. File be consigned to the record room

Dated Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

19.11.2014 Member President