OFFICE  OF  THE  DISTRICT  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL FORUM, KAMRUP,GUWAHATI

C.C.31/2011

Present:-

                        1)Md.Sahadat Hussain, A.J.S.  -         President

                        2)Smt Archana Deka Lahkar    -         Member

                       3) Sri Jamatul Islam                  -            Member

           Sri Phatik Chandra Baruah                                    -            Complainant

           S/O- Late Ramesh Baruah

           H.No-29, Shivsthan Bye Lane,

           Shiv Mandir Path,Six Mile,Khanapara,

           Guwahati-781022,Assam                                   

                           -vs-

1)        The Chief Manager                                                -      Opp.parties

            State Bank of India,

            Silpukhuri Evening Branch

            Silpukhuri ,Guwahati-781003                            

 2)       The Assistant General Manager

            Region-I, State Bank of India,

            Zonal Office, Bhangagarh

            Guwahati-781005,Assam           

3)        The Chief General Manager

            State Bank of India,Local Head Office,N.E.Circle

             Dispur,Guwahati-781006,Assam

4)         The Deputy General Manager

            State Bank of India,Customer Service Dept.,

             Personal Banking Branch,SB Bhavan, IVth  Floor,

             Nariman Point,Mumbai-400021

5)         The Chairman, State Bank of India,

             State Bank of India, SB Bhavan, IVth  Floor,

              Nariman Point,Mumbai-400021

Appearance:-  The complainant himself appeared for  the case and Ld advocate Mr Kamal Kanti Nandi and Ld advocate Mr Kunal Kanti Saha Roy forwarded argument for the opp. parties.

Date of Argument- 14/02/2018

Date of Judgment-06/03/2018

                                                                                               JUDGMENT

THIS IS A PROCEEDING U/S-12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

1. The complaint filed by Sri Phatik Chandra Baruah  against the Channel Manager,State Bank of India  and four others was admitted  on 17/06/2011 and notices were served on the opp. parties and the opp. parties also filed joint wrtitten statement on 16/04/2013. Complainant adduced his evidence by filing affidavit on 10/09/2013 and he was cross examined   by the Ld counsels of the opp. parties . Thereafter the opp. party side submitted evidence of Sri Partha Sarasthi Sarma  on affidavit and he was also cross examined by the complainant. Thereafter the complainant filed  his wrtitten argument on 14/02/2016 ,and Ld advocate Mr K .K. S.Roy  filed written argument on behalf of the opp. parties, and on 14/02/2018 we heard  the oral argument of the complainant and of Ld advocate  Mr K.K.Nandi  and Mr K.K. S. Roy who forwarded argument for and on behalf of the opp. parties ; and today we deliver the judgment which is as below-
2. Complainant case in brief is that the complainant had one Savings Bank Account vide No-30034469265 and he also deposited all his Superannuation benefits to the State Bank of India  ,Silpukhuri Evening Branch ,Guwahati for a period of 6 (six) years w.e.f 23/09/2006 to be matured on 23/02/2012 in three fixed deposit accounts vide No-30079400357, 30079400404 and 30079400482,  of which Account No-30079400404 was paid up in prematured stage on 12/02/2009;and as per terms and conditions of fixed deposit,the accured interest of the fixed deposit accounts were to be deposited in the savings bank account every  month till maturity . The monthly interest  of fixed deposit account No-30079400357 is Rs.4,467, 3007900482 is Rs.3,722 totalling Rs.8,189  , but the opp. party bank deposited less amount than the actual accured monthly interest on 23^rd of every  month  since 22/07/2007 on the plea of deduction  of TDS  on the interest of the fixed deposits but issued no TDS deduction certificate to him. When he submitted  income tax returnsin  Form No-15-G to the opp. party time to time , they refunded TDS deducted  from accumulated interest of both fixed deposits on a later date. On 23/06/2010 the opp. party deposited accured  monthly interest of  the fixed deposit account No-30079400357 for an amount of Rs.2,174 instead of Rs.4,467 and Rs.2,977 if account No-30079400482 instead of Rs.3,722 less by Rs.3,038 . On 23/07/2010, the opp. party bank deposited Rs.3,573 instead of Rs.4,467 accured interest of fixed deposit account No-3007940357 and Rs.2,977 instead of Rs.3,722 for account No-30079400482 for the month of July,2010 less by  Rs.1,639  which was  refunded to him  on 30/08/2010, and thereby caused him out of fund from 23/07/2010 to 10/08/2010. The opp. party bank  sanctioned a pension loan  bearing account No-30751703696 him on April, 2009 for Rs.1,00,000  payable in 60 (sixty) equal monthly instalments @ Rs.1,695/- per month which was to be recovered after one month from the date of sanctioned,  but  the bank suddenly, on 21/07/2010, recovered additional amount of Rs.6,875/-  in addition to revcovery of EMI  for that month, and regarding this irregularity, he took up the matter to the Branch Manager of  his branch vide his letter dtd.23/07/2010 and 26/07/2010 but the Branch Manager  did not respond to his grievances  and then he wrote a complaint to the  Chief General Manager ,State Bank of India ,Local Head office Guwahati on 03/08/2010 and he also  submitted  a complaint  to Deputy  General Manager, State Bank of India ,Customer Service Department, Mumbai through internet  vide ticket No:CC-1281855753782 dtd.03/08/2010 , but found no response from him  and then he filed a RTI petition to the Public Information Officer ,State Bank of India ,Guwahati on 21/09/2010 and the bank gave him information which appears contradictory  to the real transaction took place for the disputed amounts . The Assistant General Manager confirmed vide his letter No-AGM(I)17/AP/999 dtd.06/10/2010 that –a) the actual amount of monthly interest payable on his TDR A/C No-30079400357 and A/C No- 30079400482  with Silpukhuri Evening Branch are Rs.4467/- and Rs.3,722/- respectively, b) TDS  deducted @10% in April and 20% in May and June,2010, c) Amount of TDS deducted and deposited  with appropriate authority from the interest paid on his TDR A/C No- 30079400357 and 30079400487 for the  month of May Rs.820/- and for June Rs.3,038/- (For June Rs.1,638,Rs.818 /- arrear for May,2010 and Rs.582 /- arrear  for April,2010) .Assistant General Manager vide his letter  Memo No-AGM(I)17/AP/999  dtd.06/10/2010 states that the amount deducted for Rs.582 (Rs.317+Rs.265) from both fixed deposit accounts as TDS for the month of April,2010 . That amount was refunded without assigning any reason on 12/05/2010 but again deducted on June,2010 as arrear . The amount so deducted by opp. party bank is 7.32% on interest paid on fixed deposit but not 10% as stated by Assistant General Manager, Region-I vide his letter quoted above. The opp. party is not confident by themselved about actual amount deducted / refunded but is working whimsically . The Branch Manager ,State Bank of India, Silpukhuri Evening Branch,Guwahati vide his letter No-17/48 dtd. 20/09/2010 addressed  to Assistant General Manager, Region –I  stated that the TDS  deducted from the interest earned on TDR’s  @20% by the system  and the same was deposited with CBDT by 07/07/2010 but in the Form No-16A submitted by opp. party the TDS was actually deposited with CBDT on  12/07/2010 in contravention of TDS Rule- 30(1)(b) .  The Form No-10A as well as PAN no of the  complainant were available with the opp. party branch but opp. party bank deducted from his  monthly pension for the month of January, February and March ,2011 but quoted an imaginary PAN No “ ACVPM8885E” instead  of his PAN  No- “ACNPB4475H” which is available  with the opp. party bank and moreover TDS deducted from pension paid for January, February  and March,2011  was not deposited  with appropriate  authority till 30/04/2011. Assistant General Manager,Region-I vide his letter No-AGM/1/17/AP/993 dtd.06/09/2010 stated that there was no default of instalment on repayment  of loan . The monthly instalment  should be Rs.2,263 as fixed by branch; and instead of Rs.1,695 as fixed by Branch Manager  caused irregularity  of Rs 6,875 and realised  to regularise  probable NPA. There was no default of instalment, then how irregularity occurs  is not explained by Assistant General Manager,Region-I . If any irregularity due to less EMI fixed by the branch then actual EMI would have been as  stated by Assistant General Manager the irregularity could have been detected by the Branch Manager after sanction by the Manager  on April,2009 till the date of recovery of irregularity amount of Rs.6,875  on 21/07/2010,  but  the opp. party side did not take any steps to rephrase the repayment schedule under his advice. Thus it is seen that the Branch Manager has done irregularity  while calculating  the EMI  for repayment of the loan for which the opp. party also charged panel rate of interest as fined arrear adjustment  every month from him.

The opp. party branch did not perform his deligated duty to controlthe loan accountsanctioned by an officer junior to him and due to negligence of the Branch Manager he had to pay penal rateof interest for less EMIfixed by the Branch Manager and had to bear pain of pecuniary lossfor deduction of Rs.6,875 at a time from his account without any information from him. The Assistant General Managerhaving aware of the actual reason of irregularity occurred in the loan account he could haveinstructed the Branch Managerto rephase the repayment schedule of the loan account under advice to him while there is a deficiency of servicein their part. As per Bank’s Book of Instructions everytransaction is to be reported to the depositor/ borrower in their Central Office Stationery (COS) form which generated inthe Core Banking System by default but Silpukhuri Evening Branch ,Guwahati did not follow the instructions to send the credit/debit advicesto him. Thus the said branch found deviated from the banking standard system and procedures laiddown in the “Bank’s Book of Instructions.” The opp. party bank further plea is thatamountdeducted by the system. The system is programmed by someone called expert appointed by the bank.If the system has landed in the bad / untrained hands working on the system of the bank or it is a gross negligence on the part of the Controlling Authority of the bank who has miserably failed to protect the interest of the customers. As per normal banking practicethe bank should informed the customer and abstrained Form No-15G /15H, as the case may be from the customer at the time of application for opening of account , if the account holder is not liable to pay taxon the interestearned but he submitted the same at the time of opening of fixed deposit account and from time to time which were not uploaded in the system. The opp. parties should have issued certificate (TDS, Form No-16A)if deduction of tax from interest accured on deposits the Silpukhuri evening branchhas not compiled withthe present instructions and norms ,and whatever tax deducted and deposited with CBDTinspite of submission of Form-15-G was issued after filing RTI petition. Silpukhuri evening branchdoesnot care to senda debit / credit adviceto him in COSforms in compliance with the instructions of Charter of State Bank of India .The opp. parties have to acknowledgethe grievance ofcustomer within 5 daysfrom receipt and initiate action to have the grievance resolved withina maximum period of3 weeks and the customer would also be kept informed of the action taken,the reason of delay if any, in redressal and the progress in redressal of grievance but local head office did not take endeavorto attend his complaint until he filed RTI petition and thereby they deviated fromCode of Key for fair bankingpractice. Hebeing, a retired person, solely depends on the interest of his fixed deposits and became outof fund by deduction of TDSat higher rate i.e.20% inspite of submission of form No-15G and the PAN Cardas perbank norms; and “deductionof so called irregularity to avoid probable NPA” from his pension loan due to negligenceof Branch Manager of Silpukhuri evening branch . He served a legal notice stating all the facts of the caseon 27/12/2012 demanding to pay him Rs.2,10,733/- within a period of 15 days .Itis a case of gross financialirregularity .and negligence on the part of the opp. parties and taking no action to redressal his grievance by opp. parties caused irreparable loss, injury and mental agony to him and also caused cost in travelling to the forum . Thereforehe is entitled to get Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental hardship to him and another Rs.1,00,000/- for causing mental agony arisingout of the situation , Rs.1,00,000/- for causing loss of his business and reputation as well as goodwilland Rs.1,00,000/- for cost of proceeding.

3. The plea of the opp. parties in brief is that there is no cause of action for filing the present complaint. The account No-30079400357 and No-30079400482  stood closed on 05/10/2010 and third account also closed and  for that reason the complainant is not a consumer of the answeing opp. party . The initial rate of deduction of TDS  was 10 % for  April,2010 ,10% for May 2010 and 20 % for June 2010 and as per amendment of the Finance Act and Income Tax Rules, 2010 , if any person whose income is subject of TDS  under the provisions of Income Tax Act  fails to furnish PAN  to the deductor  along with Form- 15-G / Form-15-H ,the rate of deduction shall be 20% or at the rate in force which ever is higher .In so  far as the complainant failed to file Form-15-G /15-H and PAN in compliance to the amendment of the  Finance Act, the rate of deduction of 20% is w.e.f April,2010 and hence after deduction of 10% for the month of April,2010 and May,2010 the arrear deduction of 10% for April and May  , 2010 was deducted in the month of  June towards TDS. The complainant having failed to sumbit PAN along with Form-15G  at the relevant  time, tax was deducted in the manner aforesaid  in compliance to the direction of bank as well as the provision of Finance Act,2010 and Income Tax Rules , 2010 . They, vide letter dtd.06/10/2010, informed  the complainant the rate of deduction of TDS but the complainant deposited  Form-15G and the PAN  in the bank only on 24/07/2010 and for that reason TDS are deducted on interest earned from deposits @20% and same was deposited to CBDT on the 7^th of the following month and after the complainant’s  compliance with the requirements, Form No-16A was given to him by the bank and hence his liberty   to claim refund  of the said amount from the authority of income tax. But  the complainant hasnot stated that he claims deduction of TDS based  of Form -16A  (income tax return) with IT authority . Secondly, the  interest of his pension  loan was 12.75% and EMI  fixed was Rs.1,695/-  for loan of Rs.1,00,000/-  and but actually the rates of 12.75%  and  EMI  for 60 months should be Rs.2,263/-  but  he paid EMI of Rs.1,695/- and  not Rs.2,263/- and the differences in the  amount of EMI caused irregularity of Rs.6,875/-  which was realised as over due amount  and that was informed to the complainant vide letter dtd.06/10/2010 . That loan account was closed on 27/07/2010 and a fresh loan of Rs.1,00,000/- was again sanctioned  on the same date which the complainant has not stated in his complaint. They,  in response to the letter of the complainant dtd.03/08/2010,   sent letter dtd 03/10/2010 to the complainant  along with copies of letter  dtd.03/09/2010 by Chief Manager Network –I , letter  dtd.03/09/2010 by the Branch Manager. In the letter dtd.03/09/2010 by the Branch Manager  the reason for deduction of TDS @20% and an amount of Rs.6,875/-  were specifically mentioned and they  also replied to the   letter dtd.21/09/2010 sent   by the complainant vide their letter dtd.06/10/2010 . The contents of the letter  dtd.20/09/2010 itself reveals the laches and negligence of the complainant . They  deposited the TDS in accordance with bank’s norms and guidelines and the complainant can claim refund of the same in accordance with due process of law in appropriate authorities  but  the complainant has not mentioned as to whether he has not claimed deduction of TDS and whether he has not claimed  refund of TDS. The bank did not deposit the tax in an imaginary Pan No . The PAN  is given  by the complainant and if the PAN mentioned in the pay slip is an imaginary one he should  have rectified  the errors with   the authorities of the bank but he has not rectified it . The loan account No- 30751703696 was closed prior to filing of this complaint and the matter relating to the said loan account after its closure donot arise . They supplied the information to the complainant in response to RTI application dtd.21/09/2010 vide their letter dtd.06/10/2010 . The complainant himself is liable for his own laches  and negligence and for concealment of material facts and particulars they replied to the legal notice on 16/05/2011 denying the allegation  and demand of the complainant . The date of arising the cause of action is not mentioned . There is no deficiency of service on their part and hence complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.
4. We have perused  the pleading as well as the evidence of the parties and found that it is both sides’  admitted fact  that the complainant, Sri Phatik Chandra Baruah  had ,after  his retirement from service, deposited his entire superannuation benefits  in State Bank of India  ,Silpukhuri Evening Branch , Guwahati in three fixed deposits for a period of 6 years  vide account No-30079400357, 30079400404 and 30079400482 w.e.f. 23/09/2006 , to be matured on 23/02/2012 with a condition  that the opp. party bank would deposit the accured monthly interest at the prevailing rate of interest into his saving bank account No-30034469265 every month till maturity and accumulated monthly interest of account No-30079400357 was Rs.4,467 and  30079400482 was Rs.3,722 totalling Rs.8189/-,  and the account No-30079400404 was withdrawn  prematured by  on 12/02/2009 ,and the bank would deduct the TDS on interest on the fixed deposits.
5. The complainant states in his evidence that the bank did not issue TDS certificate to him and that on  submission  of income tax return Form-15G  along with photocopy of PAN  card  time to time by him, the opp. party   refunded TDS deducted from his interests on a late date mostly on the next preceeding month,  for which,  he did not complain breach  of trust  ; and that on 23/06/2010 the bank deposited  monthly interest of account No-30079400357  for an amount  of  Rs.2,174/- instead of Rs.4067/- and Rs.2977/-  in account No-30079400482 instead of Rs.3722/- less by an amount of Rs.3038/- and again on 23/07/2010 the bank deposited an amount of Rs.3573/- instead of Rs.4467/- on fixed deposit account No-30079400357  and Rs.2977/-  instead of Rs.3722/- for fixed deposit account No- 30079400482 for the month  of July,2010 less by Rs.1639/- and thereby made him out of  fund from 23/07/2010 to 10/08/2010 ; and regarding that irregularity  he took up the matter with the Branch Manager vide his letters  dtd.23/07/2010 and 26/07/2010;  and then he, finding  no response, wrote to the Chief General Manager ,SBI,Guwahati and finding no response he wrote to Deputy General Manager ,SBI, Mumbai  vide ticket No-CC-1281855753782 dtd.03/08/2010 but he did not get response  and then he filed one RTI petition to the Public Information Officer of local head office  ,Guwahati and who received  his RTI petition and  the Assistant General Manager,SBI confirmed, vide letter AGM(I)17/AP/999 dtd.06/10/2010 that the actual monthly interest accured  on TDR account No-30079400354 and account no-30079400482 are Rs.4467 and Rs.3722 respectively and TDS deducted at the rate of 10% in April and 2005 in May and June ,2010 and deposited in the proper authority and TDS deducted for the both account in the month of May Rs.820/- and for June Rs.3038/- (for June Rs.1638,Rs.818 -arrear of May,2010 and Rs.582 -arrear for April,2010).  He further states that Assistant General Manager vide letter dtd.06/10/2010 stated that the amount deducted for Rs.582  (Rs.317+Rs.265)  from both the term deposits  as TDS for the month of April,2010 which  was refunded without assigning any reason on 12/05/2010 but again deducted on June as arrear and that amount so deducted by the opp. party is 7.32% of interest paid on the fixed deposit  and not 10% as stated by Assistant General Manager and thereby the opp. party is not confident by themselves about the actual amount deducted/ refunded but working whimsically .He further states that the Branch Manager of State Bank of India  ,Silpukhuri Evening Branch , Guwahati vide letter no-17/48  dtd.20/09/2010 addressed to Assistant General Manager,Region-I stated that TDS deducted from the interest earned on TDRS @12% by the system and the same was deposited with CBDT  on 07/07/2010 but in the form No-16A submitted by the opp. party the TDS was actually deposited with  CBDT as on 12/07/2010 in contravention  of TDS Rule-30(1)(b).

The first grievance of the complainant against the opp. party is that , the opp. party bank deducted income tax on the interest accured on fixed deposit account No-30079400357 and account No-30079400482 for the month of April, May and June ,2010 at the higher ratebut not at 10% which was the rate at that time. Thye opp. party side plea in this point is that as per amendment of the Finance Act in the year of 2010the rate of deduction of income tax was 20% w.e.f April,2010 and hencethey after deducting the tax of the month of April, May of 2010 @ 10% , they deducted arreartax of 10% for the month of April and May,2010 and from the month of June they werededucting @20% at regular manner from June,2010 and therefore the deduction of income tax by themon the interest of complainant’s fixed deposits @20% is not illegal one. After perusing the cross examinationof the part of the complainant we have found that he himself admitsthat after submissionof Form -15G hegot back the TDS deductedpertaining to the interest accruedon his fixed deposits from the bank, and he also states that he does not know the rate of TDS for the relevant year. Thusit is established thatrate of TDSof the month of April, May and June,2010 as madeby the opp. party bank was not illegalact,and after receiving the Form -15G from the complainant , the bank returned the excess amount returnable to the complainant. Therefore we are of opinion that , no grievance pertaining to TDS against the opp. party remains.

6. The complainant had taken  Rs.1,00,000 as loan from the opp. party bank vide loan account No-30751703696 with interest @ 12.75% per annum repayable in 60(sixty) equal monthly instalments.The complainant’s plea is that the rate of EMI was Rs.1695/- but as per opp. party EMI was 2263/- . The complainant states that suddenly  on 21/07/2010 , the opp. party bank recovered additional amount of Rs.6875/- in addition  to recoveryof EMI   for that month,  which is according to him is illegal and then he has drawn  the attention of the bank vide his letters dtd.23/07/2010 and 26/07/2010 (Exhibt-8) but he has not got relief and then he wrote Chief General Manager vide his letter  (Exhibit 9) and to Deputy General Manager ,Cutomer Service Department ,Mumbai vide his letter (Exhibit-10)  but he found no response . On  this point the plea of the opp. party is that  , the actual rate of EMI was  Rs.2,263/- but not Rs.1,695/- and complainant was paying  EMI @ Rs.1,695/- and there by  it caused irregularity  of Rs.6,875/- and they reported the matter to the complainant vide their letter dtd.06/10/2010 , and they deducted the said amount as arrear of EMI  ; and  that thereafter  the said loan was closed on 27/07/2010 and the complainant on that very day took another loan of Rs.1,00,000/-. In the cross examination the complainant admits that he was informed by the bank about the irregularity of Rs.6875/- in payment of EMI which was to be realised. He also admits that earlier loan of R.1,00,000/- repaid and he prayed for a fresh loan of R.1,00,000/- which he has  not mentioned in his complaint petition as well as in evidence. This  admission of the complainant proves  the plea of the opp. party that the rate of EMI  was Rs.2,263/- but not Rs.1,695/- and complainant was paying the EMI in lesser rate and that caused irregularity of Rs.6,875/-  in payment of  EMIs and they realised that over due amount aften informing the complainant,  and the complainant , on 27/07/2010,  closed that loan without any objection and procured another fresh loan to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- on the same day. The second loan is found not a part of dispute in this proceeding. Thus, it is crystal clear that, the realisation  of Rs.6,875/-  against the over due of  EMIs is not an illegal on the part of the opp. party and that at the time of closure of the said loan the  complainant had not objected  the matter. Therefore, we hold that the allegation of the complainant that bank had illegally deducted Rs.6,875/- from his account as recovery of arrear EMI,  is not established.
7. The complainant’s third allegation is that the opp. party bank deducted TDS  from his monthly pension of the January,Febryary and March ,2011 against PAN No-ACVPM8885E instead of his PAN No-ACNPB4475H which is available  with them . In this respect, the plea of the opp. party is that they have not deposited TDS  in an imaginary PAN No , but  deposited in the PAN No mentioned in the pay slip of the complainant and if the PAN No given in the pay slip was imaginary one  the complainant could have raised the matter before the appropriate authority and could have prayed for rectification of the error, but he has  not done it.

We have perused Exhibit-16 and it is found that the income tax of the month of January,2011 amounting to Rs.737/- was deposited in PAN No-ACVPM8885E which does not belong to the complainant but the income tax of the month of February ,2011 was deposited against PANof the complainant which is ACNPB4475H ,and in March no income tax was deducted. Therefore , it is notproved that, the income tax of the month of February and March 2011, was deposited in an imaginary PAN No which is ACVPM8885E, but it is proved that the income tax to the tune of Rs.737/- for the month of January,2011 deposited in PAN No- ACVPM8885E

8. Perusing the complaint we have found that , the complainant prays to this forum  to direct the opp. party to refund Rs.10733 which includes TDS deducted for the month of June-Rs.1638/-, arrear for May,2010- Rs.818/- , arrear tax for April,2010 -Rs.582/- ,tax for the month of May,2010-Rs.820/- and Rs.6,875 which he says that  it was illegally deducted as arrear EMI of the loan taken by him. It is already established that, he is not entitled to that  amount. Thus it is clear that, the complainant does not  prayed to  this forum to direct  the opp. parties to refund  him Rs.737/- which was found deposited against a wrong PAN no. It is also found that in the cross -examination the complainant admits that the tax deducted at source i.e. excess tax deducted was already returned to him  by the opp. party bank, while he filed Form-15-G . This version clearly shows that he has no grievance of deducting Rs.737/- as income tax of the month of January,2011 and deposited against an imaginary PAN no ,which does not belong to him. Thus , we hold that, the dispute of depositing said amount has been solved by both the parties at relevant time, and therefore the complainant does not pray for directing to refund said amount.

Summing up our discussionas above, we have found that , the complainant is not entitled to refund of any amount from the opp. party bank. We have also found that, the opp. party side has no way harassedthe complainant,nor put him in mental agony nor did deficiency of service towards the complainant.

9.  Because of what has been discussed as above , we hold that, the complaint has no merit . Hence the complaint is dismissed on contest.

               Given under our hands and seal of this forum on this day 6^th March ,2018.

              Free copies of judgment be delivered to the parties.

      (Smt.A.D.Lahkar)                        (Sri J.Islam.)                             (Md.S.Hussain)

             Member                                 Member                                   President