DATE OF DISPOSAL: 22.05.2024.
PER: SRI SATISH KUMAR PANIGRAHI, PRESIDENT:
The factual matrix of the case is that the complainant has filed this consumer complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties (in short the O.Ps.) and for redressal of her grievance before this Commission.
2. The complainant had subscribed a fixed deposit certificate in Account Number: 0331415000183/1 with O.P.No.1 in the Canara Bank, Main Branch Berhampur which was matured on 12.04.2020. The said maturity amount for redemption of aforesaid fixed deposit was Rs.10,87,201/- only. But on dated 18.09.2020 the complainant renewed and reinvested said matured fixed deposit amount for Rs.10,83,037/- which is less amount of Rs.4,164/-. The date of its maturity was on 12.04.2020. The complainant had questioned with the O.P.No.1 about deduction of Rs.4,164/- from payment of aforesaid fixed deposit amount when it was renewed for further period of one year and not paid the Bank interest for the period from 12.04.2020 to 18.09.2020 for the said F.D. matured amount. The O.P.No.1 and Bank staff could not disclose any reasonable cause in the said captioned matter. On 18.10.2021 the complainant had issued legal notice claiming said amounts through her advocate. The O.Ps have received said claim notices with proper acknowledgements, but maintained silence. The complainant had enquired by obtaining T.D.S. traces particulars in Form-26AS of Income Tax Authority in Canara Bank Transaction in the captioned matter of complainant in her PAN No.AVFRD-2757 and obtained income tax deduction statement under section 023AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the years 2018 to 2019, 2019 to 2020, 2020 to 2021 covering the date of subscribing fixed deposit account No. 0331415000183/1 but no T.D.S. amount deducted from the maturity amount of said fixed deposit of the complainant. The O.P.No.1 has erroneously, illegally, arbitrarily and negligently deducted sum of Rs.4,164/- without any reasonable cause. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.Ps to refund Rs.4,164/- with 7% interest to the account No.033141500183/1 and compensation of Rs.50,000/- in the best interests of justice.
3. The Commission admitted the case and issued notice to the O.Ps.
4. The O.P.No.1 & 2 filed written version through his advocate. It is stated that the averments made in the complaint petition are not all true and the complainant is put to strict proof of all such averments which are not admitted herein. In Para 1 of the complaint as regards the fixed deposit said to have been made and the said deposit got matured on 12.04.2020 and the complainant reinvested the same value of the matured amount that is Rs.10,87,201/- is partly true since during the subsistence of the deposit the complainant under law has to submit the declaration Form duly filled under 15G/15H form as per rules and norms of the Bank regarding the payment of income tax. The entire operation in regard to the deduction of the tax if any, payable was computerized and such deductions if to be made, the computer automatically works out and accordingly, the bank has to function in payment of the amounts relating to the deposits made by the depositors. Such operation of deduction if any, works out automatically unless the depositor intimates the bank by filing the Form No. 15G if aged of the depositor is less than 60 years. But in case of the senior citizen, who is above 60 years, is also responsible to submit the Form No. 15H and intimate the bank to take reasonable action as provided under banking laws. The complainant failed to comply the provisions and did not take proper steps in time and neglected to file 15G/15H form the details of which to be feed by the Bank in the computerized system. In absence of the responsibility and negligence of the depositor in not taking appropriate steps it resulted in automatic deduction of the tax at the source. The complainant has not pleaded the truth of her negligence in not filing the required from 15G/15H but has falsely claimed that the O.Ps have committed deficiency of service resulting in the deduction of Rs.4,164/- at the time of the renewed of the matured deposit on 12.04.2020 amounting to Rs. 10,87,201/-. The complainant has submitted to the O.P.No.1 Bank two PAN cards, the first one bearing No. BNLPD3122R where the complainant’s date of birth is mentioned 01.07.1948. The complainant has submitted second PAN card bearing No.AVFPD2757H stating that she lost the PAN card and submitted a letter to income tax Department for cancellation of her first PAN Card No. BNLPD3122R. Subsequently the complainant has submitted to O.P. No.1 to enter the second PAN card No. AVFPD2757H, wherein her date of birth is mentioned as 01.03.1951. As requested by the complainant the O.P.No.1 has entered the details of the second PAN card No.AVFPD2757H in the system. But presently as verified by O.P.No.1 in computer system both the PAN cards submitted by the complainant to the O.P.Nlo.1 Bank are still in existing stage. The first PAN card as stated by the complainant is not cancelled by income tax Department. In Para-4 alleging that the bank staff unreasonably deducted Rs.4,164/- out of the maturity value of her earlier fixed deposit said to have matured on 12.04.2020 and further that the Bank officials neglected and misbehaved with the complainant is absolutely false and further the plea that the complainant obtained TDS trades of Canara Bank relating to that PAN card number obtained annual tax statement for the period till 2020-21 and no TDS has been deducted from the said PAN CARD in regarding to the fixed deposit is absolutely false. The complainant intends to play fraud knowing fully well that the said amount is deducted in TDS which is evident from facts of the TDS trades obtained from the system of the O.P. Bank. The complaint petition as it is stands untenable under law more so does not come within the purview of Consumer Protection Act and beyond the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum and hence liable to be dismissed with costs.
5. On the date of hearing, the Commission heard from both the parties. The Commission perused the complaint, written version, evidences on affidavits, written arguments and documents available in the case record minutely. It is manifest from the case record and submissions of both parties that the Complainant has not filed any corroborative documents pertaining to the Fixed Deposit Account No.:0331415000183/1 regarding maturity value and maturity date i.e., matured value of Rs.10,87,201/- which was matured on 12.04.2020. Whereas, it is apparent from the ‘Flexcube TD Comprehensive Statement’ from 01-Apr-2020 to 31-Mar-2021 filed by Opposite party as Document -2 that, on 12-Apr-2020 as sum of Rs.10,83,037/- has been deposited as ‘xfered to matured from Regular Deposits.’ The complainant failed to substantiate that, the complainant would liable to get matured amount of Rs.10,87,201/- on 12.04.2020 and the op deducted amount of Rs.4164/- from the said Account. Further the fixed deposit of the complainant was renewed on 18.09.2020 by the opposite party.
Resultantly, the Commission dismissed the complaint against the opposite parties. No cost.
This case is disposed of accordingly.
The Judgment be uploaded on the www.confonet.nic.in for the perusal of the parties.
A certified copy of this Judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The file is to be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
Pronounced on 22.05.2024
