Ld Advocates are present. Judgement is ready, it is delivered in open Commission in 3 pages 2 separate sheet of paper.
BY - SRI ASISH DEB, PRESIDENT
Brief facts of the complainant’s case is that the Complainant has permanent residence within this Jurisdiction. The Complainant purchased a Cash Certificate of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 22.08.2009 from the O.P being Account NO. RIP-5037 whose maturity value is Rs. 2,02,567/- on 22.02.2019 printed on the certificate. On maturity the OP /Bank refunded only Rs. 1,85,747/- out of 2,02,567/- without any intimation for deduction of Rs. 16,820/-. The Complainant being astonished continuously made correspondence with the Manager of the said Branch but complainant did not get any fruitful result. The Complainant informed this fact to the Assistant Director of Consumer Affairs & FBP in Purba Medinipur at Tamluk on 03.09.2019. In the 1st Mediation dated 27.11.2019 the Opposite party has suggested the ways to get back the deducted money 14,004/- and both the parties are required to co-operate with each other for solving the matter. The Complainant communicated the O.P on 16th March 2020 but the present Manager of this Bank informed that the previous Manager has been transferred and for this the present Manager is not able to pay the said amount without any judicial order ;the O.Ps did not pay said amount to the Complainant till now. The Complainant lastly informed to the O.Ps. Bank through a registered notice on 09.04.2022 about this matter but the O.Ps did not take any necessary action. The Complainant demanded the amount of Rs. 14,004/-(Fourteen Thousand Four). The Opposite Parties did not response about the deduction of Rs. 16,820/-. The Complainant has been suffering from mental agony. The Cause of action of the case has arisen on and form 09.04.2022 and this case has been filed within time. Therefore, complainant prays for directing the Opposite Parties to pay the said deducted amount of Rs. 14,004/- (Fourteen Thousand Four) with 10% interest from 30.01.2019 to the complainant till realization, to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the Complainant for mental agony, to pay the litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant for conduct of this case and to give other reliefs to the complainant which the Commission may deem fit and proper.
Notices of the case has been duly served upon the ops. The ops have contested the case by filing Written Version. The epitome of the written version can be stated as follows: According to ops the complainant has got no cause of action to institute this case. Paragraph 3 of the complainant is false, fabricated and concocted. It is false to state that without any intimation the ops made deduction of Rs. 16,820/-. The Complainant did not submit 15G/15H Form as per rules. Tax is deducted at Source under the provision of Income Tax Act 1961. The TDS amount was deposited to the credit of the Central Government. On 29.08.2019 the O.Ps informed the complainant about the matter of said deduction amount of TDS of Rs. 14,004/- ;and less amount of interest of Rs. 2,816/- was due to the deduction of TDS at different FY. The O.Ps have sent all details of TDS certificates to the Complainant. There is no option to return the same on the part of the O.P. Bank. Hence, according to ops the case is liable to be dismissed
Points for determination are:
1. Is the case maintainable in its present form and in law?
2. Is the complainant entitled to the relief(s) as sought for?
Decision with reasons
Both the points, being inter related to each other, are taken up together for discussion for sake of brevity and convenience.
We have carefully perused and assessed the complaint on affidavit of the complainant, evidence of complainant and ops alongwith documents.
Having regards had to the facts and circumstances of the case it is evident that the complainant being a consumer has alleged deficiency in service against the op- ; having regards had to the COVID-19 pandemic situation leading to filing of the case beyond the period of limitation and the bundle of facts we find that this case is maintainable in its present form and in law.
Now, it is evident that indisputably the complaint purchased a Cash Certificate of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 22.08.2009 from the O.Ps being Account NO. RIP-5037 whose maturity value is Rs. 2,02,567/- on 22.02.2019 .On maturity the OP /Bank refunded only Rs. 1,85,747/- out of 2,02,567/- . The ops deducted Rs. 16,820/-. It is also admitted that the complainant never submitted 15G/15H Form as per rules. Therefore, the bone of contention in between the parties is the deduction of Rs. 16,820/-.and according to ops the reason behind such deduction is non submission of 15G/15H Form as per rules during the Financial Years falling in between the deposit and maturity period.
It has been contended by the complainant that the ops deducted the said amount without giving any information to the complainant with utter violation of its duty and care to the customer specially when the customer is woman and poor. On the other hand the ops resisted the said contention and submitted that it is the duty of the depositor in a bank to furnish 15G/15H Form as per rules ; if the complainant does not furnish such Forms the System generates and deducts TDS on accrued interest each Financial Year.
On coming to appreciate the rival contentions,it is observed that Form 15G/15H are self declaration Forms that an individual submits to the Bank requesting not to deduct TDS on interest income. The CBDT notifies the date for filing 15G/15H Form as per rules. It is the duty of every Individual who has income from Bank interest or from any other sources to file Income Tax Return every year. Had she filed the I T Return on time she would have got refund of the TDS amount if it were with in exemption limit. Ignorance of law or poverty can not be any excuse for non compliance any established procedure of law. It is the rule that if depositor/ Individual does not file Forms 15G/15H on time the System automatically generates and deducts TDS on accrued interest each Financial Year. Therefore, we find that there is no force in the contentions raised by the complainant. On the contrary there is substance in the versions of ops . Besides, the complainant has misinterpreted the ops letter dated 29.08.2019; it should have been read that interest of Rs.2816/-was less or deducted due to deduction of TDS from the total accrued amount. It is misconception that ops credited RS. 2816 to the account of complainant. On total appraisal of the facts and circumstances of the case we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the ops. The complainant has failed to establish her case in accordance with law. She is not entitled to get any relief in this case.
Both the points are decided accordingly.
Thus, the complaint case does not succeed..
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
That the CC/67 of 2022 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OPs.
Let a copy of the judgment be supplied to each of the complainant and the OPs free of cost.
