By Sri. A.S. Subhagan,  Member:

            This is a complaint filed under section 12(a)  of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

            2.  Facts of the case in brief:-  The Complainant, being a  minor on 12.07.2011,  had  made a fixed  deposit of Rs.1,45,712/-  in  Opposite Party Bank.  At the time of making  the deposit,  the Opposite Party had assured the Complainant that an amount of Rs.2,48,551/-  should  be there as its maturity value.  The Complainant became major  on 25.09.2017 and in the meantime , without intimating the Complainant or her guardian,  the Opposite Party had deducted Rs.3,110/-, Rs.3,341/-  and Rs.3,856/-  respectively in the assessment years 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17  and 2017-18 towards income tax (TDS).    The  Opposite Party had not given any intimation to the Complainant in this regard.  The Opposite Party had intimated this  fact and issued the TDS certificate only on  31.01.2018  at the  time when the Complainant  visited the Opposite Party bank.  As the Opposite Party did not inform  the deduction of   income tax  deducted at source to the Complainant on time,  she could not file Income Tax Return  for  refund of TDS in respect of the assessment year 2014-15  and 2015-16 and as a consequence the Complainant has lost an amount of Rs.6,451/-  (3110 +3341).  It

was the responsibility of the Opposite Party  to inform the  deduction of TDS before and after effecting  the deduction.   The  failure on the part of the Opposite Party to do  so is deficiency of service.  So the Opposite Party bank is liable for the  loss of Rs.6,451/-  caused to  the Complainant.  Hence,  the Complainant has approached the commission with this complaint praying.

1.  To direct the Opposite Party to pay Rs.6,451/-  being the loss caused to the Complainant together with interest @ 12% per annum and  
2. To order the Opposite Party to pay Compensation and cost of Rs. 20,000/-  to the Complainant. 

The Commission   registered a    case and    notice was  served on the

Opposite Party.  The Opposite Party entered  appearance and version was filed.  In the detailed version filed,  the Opposite Party denied all the allegations of the Complainant except those which are specifically admitted  hereunder.  According to the Opposite Party,  the Complainant had deposited Rs.1,45,712/-  on 12.07.2011;   The allegation that the Opposite Party promised that there would be

Rs.2,48,551/-  including the interest when it matures on  12.07.2017  is not fully correct;  the matured amount was shown in the FD Receipt issued to the Complainant;  the matured amount contains the principal amount and the amount of interest accured on it from the date of depositing  the amount till the date of maturity;  as and   when   interest   is   added  TDS will be  automatically

deducted from it;  these facts were informed to the  Complainant and her guardian  at the time of depositing the amount;  all  the  conditions of fixed deposit are categorically stated on the back of the fixed deposit receipt issued to the Complainant as instructions applicable to the  fixed deposit;  the allegation of the Complainant that the   Opposite Party had deducted the TDS towards income tax without informing either the Complainant or her parents are absolutely false and hence  denied;  while handing over the FD Receipt to the Complainant and her parents,  it was very specifically informed that  income tax would be deducted at source  from the interest of the fixed deposit made by them every year;  the allegation that the Complainant sustained a loss of Rs.3,110/- for the year  2014-15 and Rs.3,341/-  for the year 2015-16  are not  true;  the allegation that before and after deducting  TDS,  the Opposite party is liable to inform the Complainant is also not correct;  so the Opposite Party is not liable to pay any amount to the Complainant towards the alleged loss of Rs.6,451/-.  The Complainant   ought to have acted as per the instructions  mentioned in the FD Receipt;  the Complainant did not come to the bank after depositing the amount.  The Opposite Party has not committed any deficiency of service against the Complainant;  there was no negligence in the service  of the Opposite Party;  so the Opposite Party is not liable to pay any compensation and interest to the Complainant;  the  above complaint is filed  for earning additional  financial benefit from the Opposite Party;  there is no bonafide   in the allegations made by

the Complainant; therefore, the Opposite Party prays before this Commission to dismiss the complaint with cost.

            4.  Chief affidavit was filed by the Complainant,  Exts. A1 to A2 were marked from her side and she  was examined as PW1.  Chief  affidavit was also filed  by the Opposite Party.  Ext. B1 was  marked on the  part of the Opposite Party   and he was examined as OPW1.

5. In proof affidavit,  the Complainant reiterated her allegations.  In oral evidence, she deposed that the  TDS  made from her account for two years were not intimated to her.

            6. In version  the Opposite Party has admitted that the complainant  had a

fixed deposit of Rs. 1,45,712/-  with the Opposite Party.  Also  admitted that TDS was made from the interest of the fixed  deposit of the Complainant for the assessment years mentioned in the complaint.  On oral examination of the OPW1, who is the  Manager of the Opposite Party bank, has deposed that he was not  physically present at the time of depositing  the amount and as such he  could not

say  what were the  commissions between the  then Manager  and the Complainant.  Ext. A1 and A2  documents are the TDS certificates generated by the bank on 31.01.2018  in respect of the TDS for the assessment years 2014-15 

and 2015-16  respectively.  The Opposite Party has also deposed that there was no communication between the Complainant and the Opposite Party apart from Ext.B1 which is the FD Receipt issued to the Complainant by the Opposite Party.

            7. On detailed  Perusal of the complaint, version,  affidavit filed  by the Complainant and the Opposite Party,  documents filed and marked and  the oral evidence adduced by  both the parties the Commission raised the following points or consideration. 

1.  Whether there has been  any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?
2. If so whether the Complainant is entitled to get compensation and cost as prayed for?

8. Point  No.1 and 2:-  For the purpose of convenience and brevity both the

points are considered together.

            9. There has been a fixed deposit of  Rs.1,45,712/-  by the Complainant in the Opposite Party bank.  The deposit was  made  on 12.07.2011,  its date of maturity was 12.07.2017  and its maturity value was Rs.2,48,551/-.  These facts are evident from the  face of the fixed deposit receipt.  Therefore, the Opposite Party cannot deny the maturity value shown on the face of the FD Receipt.  On

the back of the FD Receipt some instructions are printed of which,  item No.5 is shown as  “interest on this deposit is subject to TDS as per CBDT Rules on Income Tax”.  It can only be considered as a general information.  Here the Opposite Party bank has not intimated  as and when  the TDS was effected from her fixed deposit account.  The Opposite Party bank  has generated the TDS Certificates for the assessment years 2014-15  and  2015-2016 only on 31.01.2018  a date much later than the last date for  filing    Income  Tax Return   for   claiming refund of  TDS effected which is  evident from  Ext.A1 and A2 documents.  The last  date for filing  return of income tax refund for the assessment year 2014-15  was 31.08.2014 and  for the assessment year 2015-16  was 31.08.2015.  Therefore,  as the  Opposite Party bank did not generate and issue the TDS certificates within the stipulated time limit fixed by the IT department,  the Complainant could not file the Return of Income Tax for refund and consequently the Complainant has lost an amount of Rs.6,451/- being  the TDS made  for the assessment years 2014-15  and 2015-16  from  her FD Account by the Opposite Party.

            10. The first and foremost function of  a bank is accepting of deposits from the public at a lower  rate of interest and lending of it to the needy persons at a higher rate of interest.  The difference of interest they earn on these  accepting of deposits and lending of money constitutes the profit of the bank.  In short,  the banks are mainly functioning with the deposits of  its customers or consumers.  Hence there should be a fiduciary relationship with the banker and customer.  So the bank has to safeguard the interest of its customers without whom the bank cannot carry on its business effectively and in the long run.  Here the Commission  feels it fit enough to borrow the quoting made by the father of our nation  Mahatma  Gandhi,  about customer which is as follows.    

A  customer is the most important visitor  in our premises. 

He is not dependent on us.  We are dependent on him.

He is not an interruption on our work.  He is the purpose of it.

 He is not an outsider on our premises.  He is part of it. 

We are not doing him  a favour by serving him.

 He is doing  us a favour  by giving us an  opportunity to do so.

11. Here,   towards the  Complainant the Opposite Party bank has acted  indifferently  and with negligence.  Opposite party has not issued the TDS Certificate on time to safeguard the interest of the Complainant.  The allegation of the Opposite Party that the Complainant had not come to the bank after depositing the amount  can  no way be raised  as a plea for justifying  his negligence and  contesting  the case.    This contention of the Opposite Party is without understanding the spirit and essence of the  quoting of the father of our nation and is against the principles of natural justice.    The  Opposite Party was duty bound to intimate the matter of  effecting  TDS from the fixed deposit account to the Complainant either  by post or with the aid of modern electronic

or technical media which are widely available and used in every nock and corners of the world now a days.  Here the Opposite Party  bank  has failed  to discharge its duty in good faith.  So  the  Complainant being a minor,  unemployed girl was forced to suffer a loss of Rs. 6,451/-,  being  the TDS effected by the Opposite Party  from her  FD account.  This is  happened  due to the clear deficiency  of  service  from the part  of the Opposite party Bank.  Therefore the Complainant is  entitled to get compensation  and cost  from the Opposite Party.

           In the result  the complaint is allowed and the Opposite Party is directed :-

1.  To pay the  Complainant Rs.6,451/- (Rupees Six thousand Four hundred  and Fifty One only)  the loss caused to her together with interest @ 7% per annum from the  date of this complaint and
2. To pay the Complainant a consolidated amount of Rs.12,000/-  (Rupees Twelve thousand only) as compensation and cost.

The above amount should be paid   to  the Complainant by the Opposite

Party within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing  which the complainant shall have the right to recover the amount together with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of this order.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Commission on this the  23^rd  day of  July  2021.

Date of filing:08.06.2018.

                                                                   PRESIDENT:  Sd/-

                                                                   MEMBER    :  Sd/-

                                                                   MEMBER    :   Sd/-

APPENDIX.

Witnesses for the complainant:

PW1.           Krishnapriya. K. B                             Complainant.       

Witness for the Opposite Party:

OPW1.        Vipin Kumar.                           SBI Branch Manager.                       

Exhibits for the complainant:

A1.    TDS Certificate (Form No.16 A) for Assessment year 2014-15.

A2.    TDS Certificate (Form No.16 A) for Assessment year 2015-16.        

Exhibit for the Opposite Party:

B1.    F.D Receipt.                             dt:12.07.2011.