Orissa

Jajapur

CC/104/2015

Shri Arjun Ch. Mahal - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager,UCO Bank,Jakhapura - Opp.Party(s)

Sreedhar Nayak.

05 Jun 2017

ORDER

                IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAJPUR.

                                                        Present:      1.Shri Jiban ballav Das , President

                                                                            2.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, Member,

                                                                            3.Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member.                 

                                              Dated the 5th day of June,2017.

                                                      C.C.Case No.104 of 2015

Shri Arjun Ch.Mahal  S/O Late Sanyasi Mahal

Vill. Chorda Digi Sahi , P.O. Jajpur Road

Dist.-Jajpur.                                                                            …… ……....Complainant .                                                                       .

                   (Versus)

The Branch Manager, UCO Bank ,Jakhapura

Vill/P.O.Jakhapura , Dist. Jajpur .

                                                                                                                          ……………..Opp.Parties.                  

For the Complainant:                          Self

For the Opp.Party :                            Sri A. Ku. Pahil, Advocate.

                                                                                                     Date of order:   05.06.2017.

SHRI  PITABAS  MOHANTY,   MEMBER .

            Deficiency in banking service is the grievance of the petitioner.

            The petitioner being a senior citizen as well as retired employ of UCO Bank ,Jakhapura has filed the present dispute against the Branch Manager, Jakhapura in reducing the interest of  fixed deposits  which was kept by the petitioner in the UCO Bank ,Jakhapura.

            The facts relevant for the present deposit shortly are that the petitioner was working as B.M in the UCO Bank , Jakhapura. At the time of his retirement he kept his retirement benefits  amount in 19 fixed deposit in his own name and in the name she is family members having @1.25 % more interest since the petitioner is a senior citizen as well as  retired and ex-employee of the Bank. It is alleged  by the petitioner that though the bank has given @ 1.25 %  more interest in six fixed deposit but in the other 13 fixed deposits the Branch Manager of UCO Bank ,Jakhapura has reduced the rate of interest without the knowledge of the petitioner as well as without intimating the petitioner . In such situation the petitioner intimated the Branch Manager of Jakhapura UCO Bank  who in the reply clarified that such reduction of interest  was as per Head office circular. Accordingly the petitioner approached the Ombudsman in deciding the matter who  came to conclusion that the branch has paid extra interest in respect of 6  FDS by mistake .But after getting clarification from Head office vide circular dt.July,03-2014 ,the Branch has acted as per the instructions contained in the said circular and refused to pay extra interest in respect of  13  fixed deposit ,for which the petitioner was  not eligible being the 2^nd holder of the F.D.S .In addition to it the Ld. Ombudsman has also came to the conclusion that since there is no documentary evidence regarding submission of 15G form for deduction of T.D.S the Bank can not be liable in deducting the TDS amounting to Rs.1430/- .Being di-satisfied  with the decision of Ombudsman the petitioner filed the Present dispute alleging deficiency in service on the part of O.P as well as prayed to direct the O.P to pay Rs.51,260/- towards monetary value,Rs.1430/- wrongful deduction of TDS and Rs.492/- over due interest along with Rs.25,000/- as compensation.

            After appearance the O.P has filed the written version in support of the defence denying the allegation of the petitioner. According to O.P On February-2015 a mail was sent by Head office regarding revenue leakage in 75 customer I.D s of FDRs due to wrong entry of date of birth of the depositors as 1^st depositors. The FDR No.15720310023549-Kabita Mahal & Arjun Mahal ,15720310023556-Subasis Mahal & Arjun Mahal,15720310023570-Debasis Mahal & Arjun Mahal. All FDRs had preferential rates i.e 8.30+1.25=9.55% . Accordingly the above FDRs were in that list as the principal holders were not senior citizens namely Kabita (Wife) Subasis (Son) and Debasis (Son) of the petitioner. In all the FDRs , the petitioner was  the 2^nd holder. Since all the customer IDs were rectified,  system charged general rate of interest to said FDRs. On 06.07.2015,Arjun Mahal came to Branch of Jakhapura for renewal of said FDRs which was auto renewed by system dt.30.06.15  with general rate of interest i.e 8.30%. After knowing the same, Arjun Mahal in fit of rage argued with officials and used abusive and inappropriate words against Branch Manager and threatened to lodge complain if he was not allowed preferential rate of interest in his spouse’s and son’s FDRs. All these were witnessed by all branch Officials Ex-staffs, Mr.Parameswar Jena, Mr.Sarangi & Mr gunanidhi Biswal who were present on that day. The branch Manager tried to convince him but to no avail. Knowing the fact that the same can not be done, he requested to change his name in the system as principal account holder which was modestly done by the Manager on the same day in his presence. However when Branch Manager told that the petitioner  will be given preferential rate of  interest as he is the 1^st holder now ,he denied to accept the same and told  that he will come another day for the same as he was getting late for his other work . He, however never turned up and transferred all his FDRs to B/O Jajpur Road (2365) and closed it prematurely on 16.07.2015 and lodged the complain against us. All these  the petitioner  did to harass the Branch officials and to teach them the lesson as to why the O.P  denied him preferential rate considering the fact that he was ex staff, Ex branch manager of B/O Jakhapura, clearly his intensions were negative and against the Bank’s interest.

            Further the O.P has drawn our attention that Arjun ch. Mahal has 3 more FDRs in B/O 2365 ,Jajpur Road  details are :-   

1.15720310023426-Rs.463844,Kabita Mahal

2.15720310023440-Rs.463844,Subhasis Mahal

3.15720310023433-Rs.Debais Mahal

In all of these FDRs he is  the principal account holder but still he draws preferential rate of interest i.e  9.55 (extra 1.25 above 8.30%)

            In lights of above, the O.P has stated that the complainant is acting against the Bank’s interest for his selfish, inappropriate and baseless motives claiming that he was the Ex-staff of UCO Bank.

            On the date of hearing we heard  the arguments from both the sides. Perused the pleadings and documents available on record filed from the side of both the parties we are inclined to decide the dispute as per our observations stated below:

1.Admittedly the petitioner being an Ex-staff of the Bank has kept his money  in 19 FDRs in the Bank of O.P having one percent excess interest .Out of 19 FDs the O.P  though has  allowed the excess interest in 6  FDRs but in other 13 FDRs  the O.P has reduced the interest as per Head office mail received in the month of February-2015,since the wife and sons of the petitioner were not the senior citizens and for this reduction of interest it is alleged by the petitioner that he has lost  Rs.51,260/- towards maturity value. In this contest we are of  the considered view,  that the FDRs of the petitioner is nothing but contract and both the parties are bound by term and conditions of  contract as per observation of Hon’ble Supreme court reported in :

                          1996(4)SCC-704-SC=1996(II)CPJ-25-S.C.

In case of  any change towards interest  is required  to be done with the knowledge of the petitioner. In this contest the petitioner has stated that  such deduction of interest by the O.P is without knowledge of the petitioner. There is also no such documentary evidence from the side of the O.P to prove that the O.P  has intimated the petitioner prior to reduction of interest . In such situation we are unanimously  to hold that reduction of interest in 13 FDRs  was without the knowledge of the petitioner . Hence, the same being  arbitrary are under the purview of deficiency in service in view of the observation of Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2008(1) CPR-163-N.C.

            Similarly  as regards deduction of TDS amounting to Rs.1430/- it is stated by O.P that the petitioner has not submitted 15G form for which Rs.1430/- as TDS has been deducted .The petitioner also has not filed any evidence regarding submission of 15G  form. Accordingly we are in the opinion that blame can not be placed at the door of O.P  in deducting of TDS, which appears to be as per rules.

                                                                        O R D E R

            In the result the dispute is allowed against the O.P on contest in part.  The O.P is directed to pay Rs.51,260/- as maturity value along with Rs.2,000/-(two thousand) as compensation to be paid by the O.P to the petitioner  within one month after receipt of this order, failing which the O.P is liable to pay 12% interest on the awarded amount from the date of filing the present dispute till its realization.     

            This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 5th day of June,2017. under my hand and seal of the Forum.