F I N A L O R D E R / J U D G E M E N T
Presented by: -
Shri Debasish Bondhyapadhyay, President.
Brief fact of this case: - This case has been filed under section 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 by the complainant against the OP stating that complainant is a daily labour and his family resides below the poverty level and complainant’s have a joint Savings Account along with his wife namely Sajeda Dawan being No. 30572877544 at State Bank of India, Banitabla Branch, Uluberia, Howrah.
That complainant on 09/08/2011 made a term deposit of Rs.60,000/- only in his name at State Bank of India, in the said Banitabla Branch being A/c No. 31876593139 for a period of 91(ninety one) months and 1(one) day at the rate of interest of 9.25% with Maturity Value of Rs.1,20,000/- only as on 10/03/2019.
Again complainant on 02/01/2012 made another term deposit of Rs.21,000/- only in his name at State Bank of India, in the said Banitabla Branch being A/c No. 32117984257 for a period of 91(ninety one) months at the rate of interest of 9.25% with Maturity Value of Rs.42,000/- only as on 02/08/2019.
Thereafter, as per instruction of the said bank to avoid any kind of tax deduction complainant submitted 15G in respect of the said Term Deposits in every financial year since 2012 to the OP and after 2014 complainant submitted 15H in respect of the said Term Deposits in every financial year to the OP and accordingly, OP issued receipt to that effect. But on maturity, complainant got Rs.1,16,965/- only against the Term Deposit being A/c No. 31876593139 instead of its maturity value of Rs.1,20,000/- and complainant came to know the fact only after printing of pass book and after that complainant contacted with the OP in this regard and after perusal of all the documents of the complainant said OP assured to refund the deducted amount to the complainant, thereafter complainant day after day visited the concerned branch of the OP with the hope of refunding his deducted money but OP in this regard did not take any step.
That after complainant made application before the concerned branch of the OP on 08/07/2019 to refund his deducted amount and in the mean time another Term Deposit being A/c No. 32117984257 was matured and complainant got Rs.41,291/- only instead of its maturity value of Rs.42,000/- and after that complainant visited the office of the OP several times but OP did not refund the said deducted amount as well as OP also fails to give any satisfactory answer of such deductions though complainant submitted 15G/15H before the OP time to time and said OP did not issue any TDS certificate to the complainant.
Under such circumstances and finding no other alternative way Complainant filed this case before this Commission praying for directions upon the OP/Bank to refund the deducted amount along with statutory interest from the complainant’s Term Deposits being Nos. 31876593139 and 32117984257 and complainant also prayed before this Commission to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- only as compensation for causing mental harassment and complainant also prayed for before this Commission to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.5,000/- only as litigation cost.
Defense Case as per OP: - OP has contested the case by filing W/V denying all material allegations made by the complainant and contented inter alia that: -
Complainant made a term deposit of Rs.60,000/- being A/c No. 31876593139 on 09/08/2011 for a period of 91(ninety one) months and 1(one) day at the rate of interest of 9.25% and in the said account there were some deductions as TDS i.e. Rs.968/- for the financial year 2018-19, Rs.871/- for the financial year 2016-17 and Rs.803/- for the financial year 2015-16 which were deposited in PAN being No. AXVPD1469N.
Similarly, complainant made another term deposit of Rs.21,000/- being A/c No. 32117984257 on 02/01/2012 for a period of 91(ninety one) months and 1(one) day at the rate of interest of 9.25% and also in the said account there were some deductions as TDS i.e. Rs.271/- for the financial year 2015-16, Rs.294/- for the financial year 2016-17 which were also deposited in PAN of the complainant.
OP further stated that no 15H form has been received from the end of the complainant for the financial year 2015-16 and it is also stated by the OP that form 15G for the financial year 2016-17 was without bank’s signature. OP stated that complainant submitted 15H form for the financial year 2018-19 but the same was not received by the system of the OP/Bank.
Moreover, OP stated that complainant should verify his accounts in each year and deductions of TDS were made only for three years and for other years interest was credited to the account of the complainant. OP also stated that the said deductions of TDS from the maturity value of the fixed deposits of complainant are at present not under the custody of OP/Bank rather said deducted amount was remitted to the PAN of the complainant. Hence, complainant is not prejudiced as the said deducted amount could be withdrawn by the complainant.
Issue(s) / Point(s) for Consideration
On the basis of the pleading of the of the Ld. Advocate of the Complainant, the District Commission for the interest of proper and complete adjudication of this case is going to adopt the following point(s) for consideration: -
- Whether the complainant is the consumer to the OP or not?
- Whether this Commission (formerly Forum) has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
- Whether there is any unfair trade practice on the part of the OP or there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?
Evidence on record
Complainant filed Examination-in-chief supported by affidavit and also filed BNA in support of his case.
Whereas OP though in the instant case filed W/V after receiving notice but no further steps has been taken from the end of the OP.
DECISION WITH REASON
On close scrutiny from the materials on record, it reveals that the complainant is the consumer under Section 2(i)(d)(i)(ii) of the C.P.Act, 1986 to the OPs.
Complainant appears to be the resident of Howrah whereas OP is also having their office in the district of Howrah. Considering the nature of the case and prayers of the complainant it straightway gives clear signal that pecuniary value of the case is within Rs.20,00,000/- i.e. within the limit of this Commission (formerly Forum). So, this Commission (formerly Forum) has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try this case.
In support of his case complainant filed examination-in-chief supported by affidavit and also filed BNA.
Whereas OP though filed W/V after receiving notice but no further steps has been taken from the end of the OP.
In the written version filed by the OP the point of maintainability of this case, limitation matter and cause of action issue has been challenged. Over this issue this District Commission after going through the pleadings of the parties finds that the OP has not filed any separate application on the ground that this case is not maintainable. For the purpose of deciding this matter this District Commission finds that the provisions of Section 11 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is very important. In this regard it is important to note that the complainant is a consumer in the eye of law and as the claim of the complainant of this case is below Rs.20,00,000/-, there is pecuniary jurisdiction of this District Commission as well. Regarding limitation matter this District Commission after going through the provisions of Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 finds that this complaint case can be entertained by the District Commission or State Commission or National Commission even after expiry of 2(two) years if the complainant satisfies the Ld. Commission for he/she has sufficient grounds for not filing this within 2(two) years. In this instant case the cause of action has continued and the complainant side has successfully proved the fact that there is cause of action for filing this case. So, the above noted point of contention of OP side that this is not maintainable and this case is barred by limitation and there is no cause of action for filing this case cannot be accepted. On the background of the above noted position this District Commission after going through the provisions of Section 2(i)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 finds that the complainant is a consumer in the eye of law and so this case is maintainable. It is the settled principle of law that failure of the banking authority to comply with the contractual obligation to release the claim amount is deficiency of service. This legal principal has been laid down by Hon’ble State Commission, Delhi and it is reported in 2022(2)CPR(13)(Delhi).
All these factors are clearly indicating that this case is maintainable and the complainant is a consumer of the OP and this District Commission has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try this case and there is also cause of action for filing this case by the complainant against the OP.
The point No. 3 is related with the question whether there is unfair trade practice on the part of the OP or not? The point No. 4 is connected with the question whether the complainant is entitled to get relief/reliefs which has been prayed before this District Commission or not? For the purpose of deciding the fate of the above noted 2(two) points of consideration and for the interest of getting answers of the above noted questions there is necessity of scanning the evidence on affidavit filed by the parties along with interrogatories and reply filed by the parties. There is also necessity of making scrutiny of the documents filed by the parties of this case.
On comparative studies of the evidence on affidavit filed by the complainant with the evidence on affidavit filed by the OP and on close compare of the documents filed by both sides it appears that it is admitted fact that the complainant side made a term deposit of Rs.60,000/- in the OP/bank being A/c No. 31876593139 on 09/08/2011 for a period of 91(ninety one) months @ interest of 9.25 per cent. It is also admitted fact that in the said account the maturity value was Rs.1,20,000/- on 10/03/2019. There is no dispute over the issue that again on 02/01/2012 the complainant had made another term deposit of Rs.21,000/- in the OP/bank being A/c No. 32117984257 for a period of 91(ninety one) months @ 9.25 per cent interest with maturity value of Rs.42,000/- as on 02/08/2019. There is no controversy over the issue that on maturity the complainant got Rs.1,16,965/- against the term deposit being No. 31876593139 and received Rs.41,291/- in respect of A/c No. 32117984257 instead of Rs.42,000/-. Over this issue the OP has stated that they deducted TDS and also pointed out that the complainant had not filed any Form No. 15H and 15G. But fact remains that in support of the case of the OP they had not filed any cogent documents such as, TDS certificate, Form 16 etc. This matter is clearly reflecting that there is deficiency of service on the part of the OP. In this connection, the definition of “service” which is embodied in Section 2(0) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is very important. Over this issue it is the settled principle of law that service under Section 2(0) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is wide enough to comprehend service of every description and this District Forum has jurisdiction to entertain and try such complaint. This legal principle has been laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court and it is reported in 2022(2)CPR249(SC). A cumulative consideration of the above noted discussion goes to show that the OP has arbitrarily deducted TDS in spite of submitting Form No. 15H and 15G by the complainant and so the OP is bound to refund the amount of Rs.3.035/- and Rs.709/- to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.
In the result, it is accordingly,
O R D E R E D
That this Complaint Case being No. 328 of 2019 be and same is allowed on contest but in part against the OP.
The complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs.3,035/- and Rs.709/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing this case and complainant is also entitled to get compensation of Rs.10,000/- only and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- only from the OP.
The OP is directed to pay the above noted amount to the complainant within 45(forty five) days from the date of this order otherwise the complainant is given liberty to execute this order as per law.
In the event of non compliance of the above noted directions by the OP within time, the OP shall deposit Rs.5,000/- in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of D.C.D.R.C., Howrah which is to be utilized for the welfare of poor litigant public.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied at free of cost to the parties/Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/send by ordinary post for information and necessary action.
The final order will be available in the following website Dictated & Corrected by me
(Shri Debasish Kr. Bandyopadhyay)
President, DCDRC, Howrah
