Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President):
The complainant filed this complaint before this Forum u/s.12 of the C.P. Act for getting a relief against the opposite party.
2. The case of the complainant is as follows: The complainant and his father K.P. Peter jointly opened a Fixed Deposit account with the opposite party bank on 2006. They deposited an amount of Rs.1,06,689/- as fixed deposit for a period of 8 years. According to the complainant, his father K.P. Peter was a senior citizen, who is eligible for senior citizen interest benefit scheme from the bank. It is contended that on every year the complainant filed photocopy of the pan card and necessary Forms which are duly signed u/s. 15 G and 15 H of Income Tax Act. It is further contended that the complainant is not an Income Tax assessee even then he filed the above 2 documents in order to prove the said fact. According to the complainant, the bank authorities did not consider the contents of the 15 G or 15 H of Forms as per Income Tax Act and failed to furnish the details to income tax authorities in time. As a result, the bank reduced the income tax amount from the complainant’s fixed deposit. It is further contended that an amount of Rs.3,155/- and an amount of Rs.10,000/- has to be realised from the opposite party bank as compensation etc. etc. Hence, the petition.
3. The complainant filed this complaint before the Forum, we peruse the complaint and issue notice to the opposite party for appearance. The opposite party appeared and filed their version as follows: According to the opposite party, the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable either in law or on fact. It is submitted that the complainant and his son deposited an amount of Rs.1,06,689/- as stated in the complaint. It is contended that as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act fixed deposit holders are liable to submit 15 G and H declarations or to pay the income tax if necessary to the Govt. within the stipulated time. Since the complainant failed to submit any such declaration as prescribed bank deducted the income tax from his fixed deposit and remitted to the Income Tax Department. It is also contended that the father of the complainant K.P. Peter, who expired but the fact did not inform to the opposite party in time and the complainant availed all the benefit from the bank as if he lives. According to the opposite party, the complainant already availed an excess interest of Rs.2,500/- from the opposite party bank as senior citizen benefit. It is stated that the opposite party bank is a nationalised bank and strictly following all the directions of Reserve Bank of India and Govt. of India. It is further stated that it is the duty of the bank officials to deduct income tax from the deposit in accordance with law. It is further contended that the bank is eligible to realise the excess interest received by the complainant after the date of death of the complainant’s father as a senior citizen. It is further contended that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the opposite party and what the opposite party done is the statutory duty envisage under the law in force. Therefore, the opposite party prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost of the opposite party.
4. This Forum peruse the complaint, version before us and framed the following issues:
- Whether the case is maintainable before the Forum?
- Whether the opposite party committed any deficiency in service against the complainant?
- Regarding reliefs and costs?
5. The evidence of the complainant consists of the oral evidence adduced by the complainant as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A5. Ext.A1 series are the postal receipts (5 Nos.). Ext.A2 is the copy of Form No.2D. Ext.A3 is the SBI Pass Book of the complainant. Ext.A4 is the copy of statement of account issued by Union Bank of India. Ext.A5 is the Union Bank Pass Book of the complainant. On the other side, the opposite party examined the Branch Manager of the Union Bank of India, Adoor Branch as DW1 and marked Ext.B1 to B3. Ext.B1 is the copy of Form No.15 G of Income Tax dated 05.04.2013 signed by the complainant and his father. Ext. A2 is the copy of declaration form dated 07.04.2012. Ext.B3 is the copy of declaration form dated 02.04.2011. The complainant filed a proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and he deposed in chief examination that he deposited an amount of Rs.1,06,689/- with the opposite party bank for a period of 8 years as fixed deposit. According to him, he is eligible to get an amount of Rs.1,93,323/- at the time of the completion of the period of fixed deposit. It is deposed that an amount of Rs.3,155/- had been deducted from his deposit and the remained amount paid to the complainant. It is further deposed that PW1 filed Form 15 G and H with pan card to the opposite party in the year 2012 to 2014 but the opposite party failed to consider this fact and without any reason deducted the income tax amount from his fixed deposit. The failure of the bank with regard to the non-furnishing of income tax details is a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
6. On the other side, the opposite party bank manager of the bank concerned who was examined as DW1 in this case. DW1, he who filed a proof affidavit along with an addl. affidavit dated 19.08.2016 in lieu of his chief examination and deposed that the complainant’s father K.P. Peter died on 27.10.2009 but this fact was not intimated to the bank and the complainant illegally received the excess rate of interest as his father is a senior citizen. It is deposed that the complainant failed to submit Form 15 H in time and the bank was constrained to deduct the income tax amount from the fixed deposit of the complainant. It is further deposed that the bank has committed any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant and all act of the opposite party are legal and in terms of Reserve Bank of India Act and Govt. of India Policies. The learned counsels concerned to both sides cross-examined PW1 and DW1 respectively and after the closure of evidence, we heard both parties.
7. Point No.1:- The opposite party in this case contended that the case is not maintainable before this Forum. In order to substantiate the contention of opposite party, the opposite party failed to adduce any substantial evidence. When we peruse the whole evidence of this case, it is crystal clear that the complainant is a customer of the opposite party and the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.1,06,639/- as fixed deposit to opposite party’s bank for a period of 8 years. It is also evident that the complainant is expecting a genuine service from opposite party by way of interest and by way of security of his fixed deposit. So we can easily come to a conclusion that the complainant is a consumer and the opposite party is a service provider as far as this case is concerned. Hence Point No.1 is found in favour of the complainant.
8. Point Nos.2 & 3:- For the sake of convenience, we would like to consider Point No.2 and 3 together. The next question to be considered is whether the opposite party committed any deficiency in service as pleaded by the complainant. It is evident to see that the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.1,06,639/- for a period of 8 years as fixed deposit with opposite party’s bank. The opposite party is also admitting this fact. The complainant and his father deposited the above said money for getting a higher level of interest and for the safety of the amount. The complainant as PW1 deposed that though he filed 15 G and 15 H as per the Provisions of Income Tax Act even though he is not at all an income tax assessee. In order to prove this fact PW1 relying Ext.A1 series. Ext.A1 series is having 5 in number. Ext.A1(1) is the postal receipt dated 07.04.2014. Ext.A1(2) is the postal receipt dated 19.04.2013. Ext.A1(3) is the postal receipt dated 25.04.2012. Ext.A1(4) is the postal receipt dated 04.04.2011. Ext.A1(5) is the postal receipt dated 22.04.2008. All these receipts shows that the complainant sent certain details to the opposite party through registered post. Ext.A2 shows that the father of the complainant is having a total income of Rs.1,25,500/- in the assessment year 2006-2007. Ext.A3 is the saving bank pass book issued by State Bank of India in favour of the complainant. Ext.A4 is the copy of the account details issued by opposite party before the legal service adalath and Ext.A5 is the bank pass book issued by the opposite party in favour of the complainant. As per the account statement of Ext.A4, it is to be noted that an amount of Rs.3,155/- is calculated as TDS amount which has to be paid by the opposite party. The date mentioned is 07.04.2014. At the time of cross-examination, the opposite party has not specifically challenged the contents of Ext.A4 or even make any suggestion with regard to Ext.A4 evidence. Ext.A5 is the savings bank pass book in favour of the complainant in this case, which was issued by the opposite party. As per Ext.A4, on 08.04.2011 a TDS refund for Rs.2,170/- can be seen from A/c. No.507103030060232 and on 27.05.2014 the said account is closed and the complainant received an amount of Rs.1,87,998/-. As per this document, it also seen that the said amount received from the fixed deposit amount Rs.1,06,689/- with interest.
9. It is pertinent to see that PW1 through Ext.A1 series proved that he had filed income tax return of Form 15 G and 15 H to opposite party’s bank on every year up to 2014. It is true that the opposite party denied the filing of this income tax returned by the complainant. When we examine the evidence adduced by both sides, it is probable to see that the complainant filed Form 15 G and Form 15 H before the opposite party without fail. If so, the opposite party is liable to inform this matter to the Income Tax Department in time. If the opposite party informed these details to Income Tax Department in time, the complainant is at liberty to file a petition before the income tax authorities for the reimbursement of the tax amount remitted by the bank. Here it is clearly proved that the opposite party remitted the tax amount from the fixed deposit of the complainant but due to the failure of the intimation with regard to Form 15 G and H to the Income Tax Department in time the complainant failed to reimburse the amount paid as income tax from the fixed deposit. Anyway, due to the failure on the part of the Manager concerned of the opposite party’s bank the complainant lost the tax amount is fixed deposit. On the other hand, it is to see that the father of the complainant K.C. Peter expired on 27.10.2009, but the complainant did not inform this fact to the bank authorities in time. The complainant, PW1 deposed that though he informed this incident to the bank but the bank authorities are reluctant to record the same. However, we find that the complainant has no right to receive any amount from the bank as an excess interest on the basis of the senior citizen’s interest scheme adopted by the bank authorities. The bank is at liberty to take steps to realise the excess interest received by the complainant on this way. In the light of the above discussion, we find that the complaint is allowable subject to the right of the bank to realise the excess interest from the complainant as discussed above. Hence Point No.2 and 3 found accordingly.
10. In the result, we pass the following orders:
- The opposite party is directed to refund the TDS amount Rs.3,155/- (Rupees Three Thousand one hundred and fifty five only) to the complainant with interest of 10% from the date of filing of this case, i.e. 18.06.2015.
- A cost of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) is also allowed in favour of the complainant from the opposite party with an interest of 10% from the date of order onwards.
- No order for cost.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of September, 2016.
P. Satheesh Chandran Nair,
(President)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member – I) :
Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member- II) :
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainants:
PW1 : P.K. Alexander
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainants:
A1 series : Postal receipts (5 Nos.).
A2 : Copy of Form No.2D.
A3 : SBI Pass Book of the complainant.
A4 : Copy of statement of account issued by Union Bank of India.
A5 : Union Bank Pass Book of the complainant.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party:
DW1 : Josekutty Thomas
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:
B1 : Copy of Form No.15 G of Income Tax dated 05.04.2013 signed by the complainant and his father.
B2 : Copy of declaration form dated 07.04.2012.
B3 : Copy of declaration form dated 02.04.2011.
