West Bengal

Dakshin Dinajpur

CC/57/2018

Sri Bireswar Roy, S/O- Late Bimal Chandra Roy - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, State Bank Of India, Rajibpur Branch(9401) - Opp.Party(s)

26 Jul 2019

ORDER

Brief facts of the complaint case are that the complainant is a senior citizen aged about 68 years. On 10.04.2012 the complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 1 lakh in the joint name of the complainant and his wife at the State Bank of India Rajibpur branch (09401) P.O & P.S- Gangarampur under fixed deposit scheme being account No. 32279081156 for a period of six years with interest @ 7.9%. The maturity value of said fixed deposit amount was Rs. 178244.00/-.

            On the date of maturity complainant had given a letter of renewal under reinvestment plan to the bank authority and his fixed deposit was showing the maturity value of Rs. 1,41,519.00/-(One lakh forty one thousand five hundred nineteen) only  i.e. deduction or less payment of Rs. 36,725.00/- of the actual matured value of Rs. 1,78,244.00/-

            Due to absence of branch manager the complainant then made contact with the deputy manager of the said branch on 10.04.2018 to know what are the reasons for deduction or less payment Rs. 36725.00/- and why without prior information such deduction was made. The deputy manager advised him to submit a prayer to the branch manager in respect of his grievance. The complainant on the very date i.e. 10.04.2018 submitted a prayer in writing to the branch manager but the bank authority refused to give any acknowledgement receipt and in spite of repeated meeting and request no response for deduction of Rs. 36725.00/- has yet been received till date.

            Without getting any alternative the complainant  lodged a complaint addressed to the higher authority of State Bank of India in Mumbai through email seeking clarification in respect unwanted deduction made by the bank without prior information to the policy holder. In response to the email of the complainant the higher authority concerned of State Bank of India sent two massages in his mobile  one of which is to receive TDS certificates through e-mail, and update his e-mail ID with the branch and another e-mail is that necessary correction have made on 18.04.2018. After getting such massages through e-mail the complainant went to the concerned branch to collect TDS certificates but deputy manager failed to give him any statement regarding the cause of less payment of Rs. 36725.00 (Thirty six thousand seven hundred twenty five) only with manner and purpose of such deduction. Moreover till date no TDS certificate has been supplied to the complainant and neither any documentary evidence of correction of error of matured value nor the actual matured value of 178244.00/- (One lakh seventy eight thousand two hundred forty four) only was received by the complainant. Under such circumstances complainant has been compelled to file the instant case before this Forum for proper redress.

            Notice was issued upon the opposite party and opposite party entered appearance and contested the case by filing a written version wherein the material averment made in the complaint is denied and it has been contended inter-alia that the instant case is not maintainable.  It has been admitted by the OP that the complainant invested Rs. 1 lakh dt. 10.04.2012 for a period of six years @ interest 9.75% and the maturity amount is of Rs. 178244.00. It has been contended by the Op that due to non submission of Form 15 G/15H the system automatically deducted the tax deduction of Rs.27508.00/- from source up to financial year 2014-15 as per guideline of government of India, income tax department and due to deduction of the said amount and the compounding effect on this amount has resulted in a lower maturity amount.  It has been further stated by the Op that after deduction the SBI authority deposited the said amount towards the account of the income tax but due to fault of the server of income tax department, the amount is not shown against the PAN of the complainant and the bank authority subsequently enquire about the matter and came to learn that amount was deposited in time in the account of the income tax department. It has been further contended by the Op that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party bank and as such complainant is not entitle to get any relief and the instant case is liable to be dismissed with cost against the complainant.

 

 

            On the side of the complainant following documents have been filed 

1.  Letter dt. 10.04.2018 given to the branch manager State Bank of India  Rajibpur branch by the complainant      Annexture 1.

2. E-mail dt. 28 June 2018 sent by the complainant to the OP.Annexture 2

3. E-mail Massage of the OP addressed to the complainant      Annexture 3

4. Photo copy of Form 26 AS   Annexture 4.

5. Letter dt. 7^th June 2018 sent by the complainant addressed to the branch manager SBI Rajibpur branch  Annexture  5

6. Photo copy of fixed deposit certificate bearing A/C 32279081156 in respect of an amount of 1 lakh issue on 10.04.2012 in the joint name of the complainant and his wife   Annexture 6

7. Photo copy of fix deposit certificate bearing A/C 32279081156 in respect of an amount of Rs. 141519.00 stands in the name of Biraswar Roy and Sabita Roy    Annexture 7

 

On the side of the opposite party following  document has been filed without any list.

1. On the side opposite party no document submitted.

 

Points for decision:

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer within the meaning under section 2(1) (d) of the consumer protection Act 1986?
2. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the Op?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?

 

DECISION  WITH  REASONS

 

             Point No.1.

            This issue is not disputed by the Ld. Advocate of the OP during his course of argument.

            Considering the facts and circumstances of the case with regard to the materials and evidence of the parties on record this Form is of the view that the complainant is a consumer within the meaning under section 2 (1)(d) of the consumer protection Act 1986.

Point No. 2 & 3

Both the issues are taken up together for discussion for the sake of convenience and brevity.

            This is admitted position that the complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 1 lakh in the joint name of the complainant and his wife on 10.04.2012 under fixed deposit scheme with the Op bank for a period of six years @ interest 9.75% and the maturity value of the said amount was Rs. 178244.00.

            This is also not disputed that on the day of maturity the maturity value of the said fixed deposit amount was shown Rs. 141519.00 and there was deduction or less payment of Rs. 36525.00 against the actual maturity value of Rs. 178244.00

            It has been asserted by the complainant that he made contact with the deputy manager of the Op bank on 10.04.2018 to know what was the reason for deduction/ less payment of Rs. 36725.00 and as to why without prior information to the complainant such deduction was made and as per his instruction the complainant on 10.04.2018 submitted a prayer in writing to the branch manager of the Op bank but the bank authority refused to give any acknowledgement receipt and in spite of repeated meeting and request of the complainant no response for deduction of a huge amount of Rs. 36725.00 has yet been received from the Op bank. Without having any alternative complainant lodged a complaint to the higher authority of SBI in Bombay through e-mail seeking clarification in respect of unwanted deduction maid by the bank and in response to the said e-mail the higher authority concerned sent two massages in the mobile of the complainant one of which is to receive TDS certificate through e-mail and to update his e-mail ID with the branch and by another e-mail it is stated that necessary correction have made on 18.04.2018. After getting such massages through e-mail the complainant went to the concerned bank to collect the TDS certificate but the Op failed to give him any statement regarding the cause of less payment of Rs. 36725.00 and till date no TDS certificate has been supplied to the complainant and neither any explanation as regards deduction of 36725.00 nor the actual matured value of Rs. 178244.00 was received by the complainant from the opposite party.

            The opposite party on the other hand has taken the plea in its written version that due to non submission of Form 15 G/15 H the system automatically deducted the tax deduction from source up to financial 2014-15 as per guideline of Government of India Income Tax Department and such TDS amount has been deducted of Rs. 27508.00 up to 2014-15 year due to deduction of the said amount and the compounding effect on this amount has resulted in a lower maturity amount. It has been further contended by the Op that the SBI authority deposited the said amount towards the account of the income tax but due to fault of the server of income department the amount is not shown against the PAN of the complainant.

            Here we find that Op bank has deducted a sum of Rs. 27508.00 as TDS for payment to the IT department but in this regard Op neither issued  Form 16-A to the complainant nor supplied any TDS certificate to the complainant till date. Complainant by letter dt. 10.04.2018 (Anexture-1) requested the branch manager of the op bank to let him know what was the cause of deduction of Rs. 36725.00 from the matured value of Rs. 178244.00 but the Op bank was remained silent. Even after institution of this case this Forum vide its order being No.8 dt. 19.06.2018 directed the complainant to submit a detailed report in respect of deduction of TDS with effect from the financial year 2012-13 but the Op bank did not comply with the order and failed to bring to the knowledge of this Forum by filing sufficient  and cogent documentary evidence as to why a sum of Rs. 36725.00 has been deducted from the matured value of Rs. 178244.00.

            In this case on the side of the opposite party one application under order -1 Rule 10 of C .P Code was submitted before this Forum for adding income tax department as party to get the clear picture in respect of the deducted amount but it is not understandable as to why the income tax department would made party to clarify about the deducted amount when it appears that the entire responsibility is upon the bank to inform the customer by supplying TDs certificate/ Form 16A/ bank statement etc the detailed report in respect of deduction of the aforesaid amount to maintain its transparency. But the opposite party bank by filing such a petition tried to avoid his responsibility. This Forum is accordingly refused to entertain such a vague petition of the opposite party.

            It is not disputed that complainant is a senior citizen and at present he is aged about 68 years. He invested the aforesaid amount of Rs. 1 lakh under the fixed deposit scheme for a period of six years but after expiry of the maturity period he got Rs.141519.00 and there was less payment of Rs.36725.00. Being a bona-fide customer complainant has every right to know from the bank authority what are the reasons of deduction or less payment of Rs. 36725.00 but in this regard the Op bank is totally silent and did not take any initiative to remove the doubt from the mind of the complainant. The Op bank also failed to give reply against the letter dt. 10.04.2018 and 07.06.2018 of the complainant. Due to such adamant attitude of the Op the complainant was compelled to refer the matter to the higher authority of SBI, Mumbai through e-mail seeking their interference and in response to the e-mail of the complainant the higher authority concerned of SBI sent massages in his mobile requesting him to receive the TDS certificate through e-mail and to update e-mail ID with the branch and after getting such massage complainant went to the concerned bank to collect the TDS certificate but the Op bank did not supply the TDS certificate to the complainant and failed to give any satisfactory statement regarding the cause of less payment of Rs. 36725.00 and manner and purpose of such deduction.  

            If we consider for argument’s sake that for nonpayment of Form 15-G/15-H a sum Rs. 27508.00 was deducted as tax deduction from sources up to financial year 2014-15 even then the Op bank is bound to supply the year wise statement in this regard to the complainant and bound to issue Form 16-A to the complainant so that he can get a clear picture in respect of total interest accrued and also the deduction of TDS by the bank but  Op did not think it necessary to supply the TDS certificate as well as form 16-A statement to the complainant in respect of every financial year from 2012-13 to 2018-19. It is also not understandable if the bank authority deducted Rs. 27508.00 up to financial year 2014-2015 then as to why the said amount would not been shown against the PAN of the complainant when the complainant has supplied to the bank his PAN number. The Op claimed that due to deduction of aforesaid amount as TDS the compounding effect on this amount has resulted in a lower maturity amount but in this regard Op neither supplied any bank statement to the complainant nor to this Forum. In fact Op has totally failed to satisfy by sufficient cogent documentary evidence the reason of deduction of a huge amount of Rs. 36725.00 from the matured amount of Rs. 178244.00 and due to such illegal and adamant conduct of the Op complainant has financially as well as mentally suffered a lot in such an old age. The Op also failed to satisfy this Forum in respect of deduction of the aforesaid amount. There is no hesitation to hold that the complainant is a consumer to the Op, accordingly he is entitled to get proper service from the OP. But the Op is found negligent to give service to the complainant and led him to file the present case for proper redress.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case with regard to the materials and evidence on record and also considering the above findings this Forum is of the view that the complainant is entailed to get the amount of Rs. 36725.00 which was deducted by the Op bank from the matured amount of Rs. 178244.00. Complainant is further entitled to get Rs. 10000.00 (Ten thousand) for harassment and mental agony caused to him by the Op and he is entailed to get Rs. 5000.00 towards litigation cost.

In the result the case is succeeds in part.

 

            Hence it is,

O R D E R E D

                        That the complaint case No. 57 of 2018 be and the same is allowed in part on contest with cost against the opposite party.

            Op is here by directed to pay a sum of Rs 36725.00 to the complainant by issuing a chaque within 45 days from the date passing this order.

Op is further directed to pay a sum Rs. 10000.00 (Ten thousand) to the complainant by chaque for mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant within 45 days from the date of passing this order.

            Op is further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5000.00 (Five thousand) to the complainant towards litigation cost failing which the awarded amount of Rs.46725.00 will bear interest @ 9% p.a till its realization and the complainant shall have liberty to put the decree in execution for realization of the entire amount.

Let a plain copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.