DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                                         Consumer Complaint No. 209 of 13.05.2016

                                                         Decided on:                      25.01.2017

1. Palvi D/o Ashok Kumar age 29 years resident of # - 443, St. No.11, Old Bishan Nagar, Patiala.
2. Ashok Kumar S/o Ram Parkash age 66 years resident of # - 443 St. No.11, Old Bishan Nagar, Patiala.

                                                                             …………...Complainants

                                      Versus

1. The Patiala Central Co-operative Bank Ltd.,  The Mall, Patiala through its Branch Manager.
2. The Patiala Central Co-operative Bank Ltd.,  The Mall, Patiala through Sh. Mukesh Kumar, Branch Manager.
3. The Patiala Central Co-operative Bank Ltd.,  The Mall, Patiala through its M.D. office at Patiala.

                                                                              …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

                                      Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member                              

ARGUED BY:

                                      Sh.Ashok Kumar, complainant No.2 in person.

                                      Sh. Manjit Singh, Adv. Counsel for O.P. No.3

 ORDER

                                    SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                 Ms.Palvi and Sh.Ashok Kumar have filed this complaint jointly under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.) praying for the following reliefs:-

1. To refund Rs.1305/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum till the date of realization;
2. To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of causing harassment & mental agony
3. To pay  litigation expenses.

2.                In brief, the case of the complainants is that on 4.3.2014 she with her father got prepared FDR from The Patiala Central Cooperative Bank Limited (hereinafter referred as Bank), for Rs.75,000/- for 21 months i.e. for the period from 4.3.2014 to 4.12.2015 @ 9.15% p.a interest vide account No.160236039100189 with her ID No.016605355 and her father’s ID No.100015820, with their joint names, the mode of operation was either or survivor. The agreed payable amount, on maturity was Rs.87,866/- against her PAN No.BCGPP9951G. On maturity, the FDR was closed on 4.12.2015.The O.Ps. paid Rs.86,561/- by deducting Rs.1305/- as TDS. On repeated enquiry made from the Bank, it handed over form 16-A on 9.12.2015, in her name for the financial year 2014-15. Thereafter the OPs handed over the interest certificate for the financial year 2014-15,amounting to Rs.7142/- against the said FDR. It is averred that the TDS of Rs.1305/- was deducted on 31.3.2015 but she was never informed till 9.12.2015. It is further averred that according to RBI ruling, the Bank was not supposed to deduct any TDS out of the FDR earning interest less than Rs.10,000/- in a financial year. According to the Income Tax ruling 10% of TDS could be deducted out of the FDR showing PAN number, if the TDS became due beyond the interest amount of Rs.10,000/- in the financial year. Her father got sent legal notices dated 16.2.2015 and 28.12.2015 & 5.1.2016 to the OPs, which were duly received by them but to no effect. Due to the illegal acts  of the OPs, they were suffering from financial loss, mental agony and harassment. There is thus, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps.

3.                Cognizance of the complaint was taken against OP no.3, who on being put to notice appeared and filed the written version . It is stated  that the complainants have saving account bearing No.160234001023432  with OP no.1 since long .The ID of complainant no.1 is bearing No.016605355. The complainants deposited Rs.75000/- jointly on 4.3.2014 for 21 months @8.15% p.a. vide account No.160236039100189 with ID of Palvi bearing No.16605355. The same was matured on 4.12.2015 with maturity amount of Rs.87,866/-. There is other FDR bearing No.82754 as well as saving account number having same ID number of the FDR. There was another FDR No.82754 having same ID no. as well as saving account number, though the same was having separate ID number of complainant No.2 bearing No.100015820. But FDR was closed. It is further submitted that due to computerization system and having joint accounts of the complainants having similar ID No.16605355,  the amount of interest was calculated by the computer system for more than Rs.10,000/- and deducted an amount of Rs.1305/- from the interest so calculated. Form No.16A for an amount of Rs.1359/- was handed over to complainant on 9.12.2015.The same was deposited with the Income Tax Department. However, complainant No.2 visited their office. He was taken to the CA of the Bank who advised him to file the return and to get the amount refunded, but he did not agree. It is denied that deduction of Rs.1359 was done on 31.3.2015 in a self styled manner by ignoring all rules and regulations of the Bank.After denouncing all other averments made in the complaint, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.

                   The complainant no.2 has also filed the questionnaire reiterating the facts of the written version, which was replied to by the OP.

4.                In support of the complaint,  complainant No.2. tendered in evidence joint affidavit, Ex.CA, on his behalf and on behalf of his daughter Palvi, alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C12 and closed  the  evidence. The ld. counsel for the opposite party No.3  tendered  in evidence Ex.OPA, sworn affidavit of Sh. Karamjit Singh, Manager of O.P., alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP4 and closed the evidence of the opposite parties.

5.                We have heard the complainant No.2, learned counsel for O.P. No.3, gone through the written arguments filed by complainant No.2,  and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.

6.                From the perusal of record, it is apparent that complainants have taken FDR No. 013094, Ex.OP1, against account No.160236039100189, in the name of the Palvi and Ashok Kumar. Another FDR bearing No.013095, Ex.OP2, against account No.160236040100112, in the name of Ashok Kumar and Palvi. Both the FDRs were for Rs.75,000/- each and were taken on 4.3.2014 having maturity date as 4.12.2015 with maturity value as Rs.87,866/- and Rs.88,620/- respectively. As per Section 194 A of the Income Tax Act, the tax has to be deducted @ 10% if the accrued interest during the financial year exceed Rs.10,000/-. It also provides that all the FDRs held by person are to be clubbed for the working out the interest limit of Rs.10,000/- for the purpose of deduction of tax at source. It also provides that TDS would be made in the name of first holder of the FDR. In the present case, the bank has deducted a sum of Rs.1359/- as TDS i.e. Rs.1305/- for FDR No.013094 & Rs.54/- for FDR No.013095. The bank has issued interest certificate on the said FDRs. In interest certificate Ex.C5, Palvi i.e complainant No.1 has the first name, Rs.7142/- has been shown as accrued interest for the period from 1.4.2014 to 31.3.2015. Similarly, in interest certificate Ex.C6, has been issued by the bank in which Sh. Ashok Kumar, i.e. complainant No.2 was the first holder of the FDR and interest has been shown as Rs.7557/- for the period from 1.4.2014 to 31.3.2015. It is seen that Ex.C5 has account No.160236039100189 and Ex.C6, has account No.160236040100112. In both the FDRs, the name of the first holder is different having different account number. Even in both the FDRs the interest accrued on the amount of the FDRs is less than Rs.10,000/- therefore, as per section 194 A of Income Tax Act, complainants were not liable to pay any TDS. The bank has committed mistake by clubbing the interest amount accrued on both the FDRs on the ground of same ID. Even the TDS deducted by the bank is not accurate because  the amount of TDS in both the FDRs, comes out to be Rs.1469/- and not Rs.1359/- which also shows that the bank has deducted the TDS negligently.

                   In view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the complaint and direct  O.P. No.3 in the following manner:-

1.       To refund Rs.1359/- which was wrongly deducted as TDS by the bank, along with interest @ 9% per annum from 4.12.2015 i.e. the date of maturity of FDRs till its realization.

2.       To pay Rs.3000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainants.

3.       To pay Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses.

The O.P. No.3 is further directed to comply with the order within  30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. However, O.P. No.3 is at liberty to get the refund of the amount of the TDS, which was wrongly deposited with the Income Tax Department. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost under the rules. Thereafter, the file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

ANNOUNCED

DATED: 25/01/2017    

                                                                   NEENA SANDHU

                                                                       PRESIDENT

                                                                   NEELAM GUPTA

                                                                         MEMBER