Orissa

Jajapur

CC/67/2017

Arjun Charann Mahal. - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Ld.Adv

30 May 2018

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 30th day of May,2018.

                                                      C.C.Case No.67 of 2017

Arjun ch. Mahal  S/O Late Sanyasi Mahal

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

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

                   (Versus)

1.The Branch Manager, UCO Bank ,Jakhapura

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

2.Manager, UCo Bank ,Jajpur Road, P.O.Jajpur Road, Dt.Jajpur

                                                                                                                          ……………..Opp.Parties.                  

For the Complainant:                                 Self

For the Opp.Party :No.1                             Sri.A.K.Pahil, Advocate .

For the Opp.Party No.2                               None

                                                                                                              Date of order:   30. 05.2018.

SHRI  PITABAS  MOHANTY,   MEMBER .

Deficiency in banking service is the grievance of the petitioner.

            The fact relevant as per complaint petition shortly are that petitioner being a senior citizen as well as retired employ of UCO Bank ,Jakhapura has filed the present dispute against the O.ps  in reducing the interest of  fixed deposits as well as TDS on the interest of FDR  which was kept by the petitioner before O.P.no.1 and already submitted 15 G form .

            It is also a fact that before filing of the present dispute the petitioner earlier filed a dispute bearing No.104/15 before this Fora on similar issue . The petitioner stated that in the present complaint the O.P committed similar mistake on other FDR which are kept by the petitioner before O.P.no.1.

The facts relevant  shortly are that the petitioner was working as B.M in Jakhapura  UCO Bank , Jakhapura branch . At the time of his retirement he kept his retirement benefits  amount  in fixed deposit in his own name and his  family members having  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 the O.P.no.1  reduced the extra interest which is applicable to the petitioner  for Sr. citizen as well as ex-employee of the O.P Bank   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 but could not produce the circular .

            The petitioner also has  alleged that in spite of submission of 15G for the year 2014-15 by the petitioner to the O.P no.1 TDS of Rs.1430/- (Annex-31) was  wrongly deducted in question ending June-2014 against and FD  and was got deposited in Govt. A/C .Actually the petitioner has submitted 15G for 2015 -15 mentioning all the 9 accounts in his/ her name in a single sheet of 15G. But the O.P no.1 posted 15g in the system in eight accounts and omitted one account, wherein the TDS was wrongly deducted. In response to my application under RTI act,2005 ,even though the corporate office of the O.P.no.1 has given in writing that the 15G for 2014-15 has been submitted by the petitioner  but  the O.P.no.1 is refused  to receipt   the same. As per the rule,15G is not required to be posted in each and every account of an individual in  the  same bank, provided all the old CBS Ids of an individual has already been modified into a single ID. But due to negligence of duty committed by the O.P no.1 the wrong deduction of TDS was occurred, as all the pre CBS old Ids were not been modified into a single Id. Further after June,2014 ,the O.P.no.1 has posted the 15G in that particular account. So no TDs has been deducted after June-2014 .If the petitioner has not submitted 15G,then from where O.Ps  has  collected 15G for 2014-15 and posted the same in the system.

            As per rule, in case of renewal of any existing FD, the date and amount of renewal should be equal with the date and amount of maturity value, if the renewal is made within 14 days of its maturity. The petitioner had submitted 3 FDs on 12.04.2014 mounting to Rs.16,67,544/- due for renewal on 11.04.2014. But the O.P.no.1 renewed the same for Rs.16,59,000/- w.e.f 12.04.2014 .Even though there was difference of one day in date and Rs.8,544/-  amount .  The O.P.no.1 is unable to explain the cause of occurring difference in both date and amount till today. Further one day delay in renewal also incurred a loss of Rs.492/-. The petitioner is unable to understand, why a valuable customer cum ex-staff will bear a loss of Rs.9036/- without any valid reason. The reason as verified by the petitioner in the system at an another branch found that the subject FDs were been renewed automatically by the system w.e.f 11.04.2014 in TD -130 ,showing a difference of Rs. 8544/ as an amount . That is why in order to mislead the petitioner, the O.p.no.1 closed all the 3FDs and kept the balance in a suspense account. Then opened 3 new FD accounts of Rs.5,53,000/- each. But instead of issuing new certificates they returned the old certificates to me mentioning the new account number and amount on the reverse side of the same. Very recently, exactly the same mistake committed by UCO Bank , jajpur Road in case of account of Mr.M.D ,Moharana,ex-Sr. Manager and the branch rectified the same by taking help from their H.O.I.T Dept. (Data Center) But in this present case, O.Ps  did not feel necessary to do so, though  neither the O.Ps.  nor his bank is losing anything  rather  the petitioner /  depositor is the loser.

            Accordingly the petitioner filed the present dispute with the prayer to direct the O.Ps   to pay Rs.57,940/- and  Rs.30526/-    respectively towards losses  with an additional amount  Rs. 5,000/- each   as penality for compensating    the mental agony , physical strain   and financial harassment.

            After notice of the O.P.no.1   appeared through their learned  advocate  and filed their written version   taking the following stands:. The O.P.no.2 did not choose to file the written version and contested the dispute. Hence he has been set-exparte vide order dt. 05.01.18.

            The Hon’ble Forum has disposed of C.C.Case No.104/2015 on 09.12.2015  against the said order the O.P  filed F.A No. 344/2017 in the State C.D.R, Commission, Cuttack  until and unless the appeal is disposed of the O.P reserves his right to comment on the allegation/ claim  of the petitioner. The said F.A No. 344/2017 is posted to 24.06.2018  appearance & hearing of appeal .

            The O.ps are branches under a statutory body corporate constituted under the banking companies ( Acquisition and Transfer of under taking Act 1970  having its Head office at Kolkata & its Zonal office at Balasore. The O.Ps are working as per the instructions as well as guide lines are formed. There is an internal audit system. The petitioner neither impleaded authorized officer of Head  Office or Zonal office of UCO Bank in this proceeding as because they are necessary parties to the proceeding . In absence of them the proceeding is not maintainable .Always employer is responsible not employee. Till yet whatever done or made as per instructions of either petitioner or the instructions of higher authorities or UCO, Bank . So the proceeding against the O.P  at the instance of petitioner is not maintainable.

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

            Admittedly the petitioner being an Ex-staff of the Bank has kept his money   in the Bank  in shape of   FDRs  and is eligible  for extra interest  as per guide line of the Bank as he was a Sr. citizen and Ex-employee of the O.P Bank .The O.P has reduced the interest as per Head office circular  since the wife and sons of the petitioner were not the senior citizens additional interest of 1% for staff / ex-staff  and 0.25 for Sr. citizen  and for this reduction of interest it is alleged by the petitioner that he has lost  Rs. 57,940/-   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 it 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.Ps  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.Ps   has intimated the petitioner prior to reduction of interest . In such situation we are unanimously   in the opinion   that reduction of interest  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 reduction of the TDS amount as alleged by the petitioner that there is no clarification by the O.Ps  in the written version  regarding the same   that  the petitioner has not submitted 15 G form in time . The petitioner also stated that he has  submitted 15G form in time before the Bank  Authority against the  FDR   account . Accordingly we are in the opinion that the O.Ps have  illegally  deducted the TDS amount in arbitrary manner  though   the petitioner already has submitted 15 G  Form  against his  FDR  account  in time .

Hence this order

In the result the dispute is allowed against the O.Ps.  on contest .  The O.Ps are  directed to pay the  amount  from the original maturity value of the FDRs  and  wrongly deducted TDS amount as claimed by the petitioner along with 9% interest from the date of maturity / deduction / due date till its realization along with  Rs.5,000/-(five  thousand) as cost and compensation   to be paid by the O.Ps  to the petitioner  within one month after receipt of this order, failing which the  petitioner can take steps against the O.Ps as per provision of C.P.Act 1986.                                              

This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 30th day of May,2018. under my hand and seal of the Forum.