DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: BHADRAK

Dated the 7th day of February, 2019

C.D Case No. 62 of 2016

                                                   Present 1. Shri Raghunath Kar, President

                                                                2. Shri Basanta Kumar Mallick, Member

                                                                3. Afsara Begum, Member

Nirmal Pradhan

S/o: Pitamber Pradhan,

At: Mugagadia,

Po: Kenduapada,

Ps: Bhandaripokhari,

Dist: Bhadrak

                                                        ……………………. Complainant

            (Versus)

1. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Kenduapada Branch

At/Po: Kenduapada,

Ps: Bhandaripokhari,

Dist: Bhadrak

                                                         …………………………..Opp. Parties

Counsel For Complainant: Sri Subodha Ch. Tripathy, Adv

Counsel For the OP: Jaminikanta Nayak, Adv & Associates

Date of hearing: 17.05.2017

Date of order: 07.02.2019

BASANTA KUMAR MALLICK, MEMBER

This dispute arises out of a complaint filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service against OP.

The facts of the complaint are to the effect that the complainant is a bonafide customer of OP bank having a saving bank account bearing No- 11700088740. Having seen the balance in the said account of the complainant, OP insisted upon the complainant to make a fixed deposit of Rs 1,00,000/- for 5 years to get a maturity value of Rs 1,50,201/- and being allured and motivated by the offer, the complainant opened a fixed deposit account on dt. 17.03.2011 for an amount of Rs 1,00,000/- for a period of 5 years likely to mature on 17.03.2016. After maturity of the said FD account OP credited the maturity value to the SB account of complainant with Rs 1,45,201/- instead  of crediting  Rs 1,50,201/-. When the complainant noticed a less amount of Rs 5,000/- was credited to his SB account he rushed to the OP bank to enquire as to why less amount has be paid violating the promise made at the time of opening of the account. The complainant asked the OP to pay the differential amount of Rs 5,00,000/- which was not responded by the OP and took different pleas to avoid payment to the complainant. Finding no other option, the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of this Forum praying for a direction to OP bank to pay the differential amount along with cost and compensation for mental agony and harassment.    

OP raised objection on the points of allegation and contested the case. OP has objected on the question of maintainability, cause of action and limitation. The complainant has taken false plea to file this case without any just and proper ground. It is also submitted by OP that the complainant opened the fixed deposit of his own accord on 17.03.2011 for Rs 1,00,000/- covering a period of 5 years  without any discussion  with the OP which was matured on 17.03.2016. The maturity value was of Rs 1,50,201/- out of which tax of Rs 5,000/- was deducted at source and the residual amount of Rs 1,45,201/- was credited to the SB account of complainant on 22.03.2016. Such deduction was made towards TDS on principle as per circular issued by Ministry of Finance Govt. of India and Reserve Bank of India. When the depositor asked verbally about less credit to his SB account than the actual maturity amount, OP clarified him about the tax deducted from the interest income as per guideline of RBI and Govt. of India. Hence the OP has not caused any deficiency in providing required service to the complainant nor has adopted any practice which may be said unfair  in the eyes of law and therefore, the complaint is devoid of merit  and liable to be dismissed with cost.

Admittedly the complainant is a valued customer of the OP bank having a SB account bearing No- 11700088740 and thereafter a fixed deposit account having face value of Rs 1,00,000/- which was matured on 17.03.2016, the maturity value of which was Rs 1,50,201/-. Other than this the complainant has alleged the subsequent action of OP bank was illegal and unlawful.

1. The complainant has alleged that it was assured by the OP bank to pay Rs 1,50,201/- on investment of Rs 1,00,000/- in fixed deposit account for a period of complete 5 years but on maturity  an amount of Rs 1,45,201/- was credited to his SB account maintained with OP bank which is Rs 5,000/- less than the assured maturity value and in spite of repeated request to pay the amount as assured, OP did not pay any heed to the sincere grievance of the complainant. On the contrary, OP contented in stating that on the principal investment of Rs 1,00,000/- the complainant was to get interest of Rs 50,201/- in 5 years and the bank is compelled to deduct the required amount of tax under TDS from the interest benefit  as per RBI guideline and the circular of Govt. of India. Therefore the OP bank had no option other than to deduct tax at source which is mandatory. Therefore the OP bank is not deficient in providing required service to the complainant nor has resorted to any unfair practice.

We have gone through the complaint, written version of OP, heard both the parties, perused material on record and observed as discussed below.

It is a fact that the complainant had a fixed deposit account of Rs 1,00,000/- for a period of 5 years which was matured on 17.03.2016. After maturity the complainant was entitled to maturity value of Rs 1,50,201/- but the OP bank paid a sum of Rs 1,45,201/- by way of transfer  to the SB account of the complainant after deduction of tax at source under the provisions  of relevant Act and Rules which was objected by the complainant. The settled position of law is that the interest income on any investment of Rs 10,000/- or more per annum would certainly warrant deduction of tax as per approved percentage prevailing at the relevant point of time. In the present case the interest income on the investment during 5 years was of Rs 50,201/- which need to be divided by five to assess the interest income per annum. In this method in making a simple arithmetical calculation it is seen that the interest income of the complainant per annum was Rs 10,000/- and above for which the OP is bound by law to deduct the tax at source and the complainant should have no objection on such action of the OP. The Tax Deducted at Source by the OP bank is justified in the eyes of law. Hence it is ordered;

 ORDER                                       

 The complaint be and the same is dismissed with cost & compensation.

This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this day of 7th February, 2019 under my hand and seal of the Forum