District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hooghly

CC OF 2021

PETITIONER

VS.

OPPOSITE PARTY

Complaint Case No.CC/149/2018

(Date of Filing:-19.09.2018)

1. Basanti Devi

450. S. K. Nagar, Rishra,

Pravashnagar-712249,Dist. Hooghly.      …………Complainant

                                          Versus

1. The Branch Manager, United Bank of India, Rishra Morepukur Branch, 84, K.C. Sen Road, Rishra-712254

2. The General Manager, Customer Service, Operation and Service, 4^th floor, United Tower,

Hemanta Basu Sarani, Kolkata-700001.     ….Opposite parties

 Mr. Debasish Bandyopadhyay, President

 Mrs. Minakshi Chakraborty, Member

 Mr. Debasis Bhattacharya, Member​

Final Order/Judgment

Debasis Bhattacharya:- PRESIDING MEMBER

       Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the services extended by the opposite parties as mentioned above viz. United Bank Of India as a whole, (Both the opposite parties belong to the same organization i.e. United Bank of India as a whole) in the matter of maturity of a fixed deposit account, renewal of the same, deduction of income tax at source by the OP bank and issuance of TDS certificate thereof, the instant case has been filed by the complainant, u/s 35(1)  of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.

The brief fact of the case is as follows.

Reportedly, the complainant who had a fixed deposit account of Rs.50,000/- with the OP bank, approached to the bank on the date of the maturity of the said fixed deposits i.e. 18.12.2016. Here the complainant does not specify the purpose for which she approached to the bank. Whether the visit was for renewal of the FD or for drawing the maturity proceeds is not clear here. However, the concerned official of the bank asked her to come after one month as they were preoccupied with post-demonetization regularization of the banking system. After a certain period, the complainant again approached to the bank for renewal of the fixed deposit and found that the bank deducted tax at source from the maturity proceeds of the fixed deposit. The complainant’s grievance arises from the fact that in spite of being a senior citizen having no taxable income, there was deduction of tax at source by the OP bank and no TDS certificates were issued.

Allegedly unbecoming attitude was shown to the complainant by the bank while dealing with the issue.

However after a long, repeated and strenuous persuasion at different level of the management of the bank and also at the level of banking ombudsman, Reserve Bank of India, Form-16A, the statutory TDS certificate dated 09.02.18 was issued by the bank on 10.02.18 and was received by the complainant on 23.02.18.

Treating this as gross deficiency of service arising allegedly out of the OP bank’s negligence, dereliction of duty and ill treatment, the complainant approaches to this Commission for imposing direction upon the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- for mental agony, Rs.1000/- for litigation cost and Rs.1000/- ‘towards cost of filing income tax return’. The complainant in support of the contents of her complaint petition has submitted photocopies of the fixed deposit advices, communications made with the OP bank, postal receipts, replies received from the bank, complaint lodged with Banking Ombudsman and replies received thereof, copies of e-mails and finally form-16A received from the OP bank.

Both the Opposite parties who belong to the same organization contested the case by filing written version and evidence on affidavit.

Points for consideration

1. Whether the complainant is the consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act 2019?
2. Whether this Commission has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to proceed in this case?
3. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief?

Decision with Reasons

In view of the discussion made hereinabove and on perusal of materials on records it transpires that the complainant who was supposed to get services from the OP bank is a consumer in terms of section **** of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

Both the consumer and opposite party No.1 are residents/having their office address within the district of Hooghly. The claim preferred by the consumer does not exceed the amount Rs.20,00,000/-.Thus this Commission has both territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to proceed in the instant case.

Issue nos.3 and 4 being mutually interrelated are taken together for convenient discussion. 

The OP bank argues that the FD accounts of the complainant were pretty old and no PAN No. was linked to the said FD accounts. Moreover the complainant did not submit Form-G or Form-H which was a pre-requisite for non-deduction of TDS. However the OP bank in compliance of the directives of RBI deducted tax at source and deposited the same with Income Tax Department without mentioning PAN Number. Resultantly no Form-16A was generated.

OP bank further claims that different tiers of the Bank administration responded to the complainant and offered her proper advice in the matter of acquiring form-16A, submitting Income Tax return. The OP bank points out that the enclosures filed by the complainant reflect the same.

The complainant on the other hand without bothering about the advices extended by the bank approached to the Banking Ombudsman.

The OP bank puts stress on the issue that during the post demonetization period the bank was overburdened with normalization of banking/financial system of the country and that continued for a substantial time.

However, reportedly, on submission of PAN Number of the account holder, TDS certificate in form-16A was duly issued by the OP bank.

The OP bank firmly rejects the charges of misbehavior and ill treatment leveled against them.

It is an established fact that in case of non-submission of form-G/Form-H the bank in compliance of extant rules is bound to deduct tax at source.

Besides, the complainant has not filed any material evidence to substantiate the charges of misbehavior and ill treatment by the bank. Moreover neither in the complaint petition nor in the evidence on affidavit the petitioner nowhere utters a single word about her PAN status and submission of 15G/15H timely before the bank. 

However the key document in the instant case is the findings made by the Banking Ombudsman. On examination of the grievances placed before the Banking Ombudsman, no deficiency in service was found and the case was closed.

Now on meticulous scrutiny of the documents filed by the complainant it is found that it is clearly instructed in the body of the FD advice to submit Form-15G/15H by 15^th April every year for non-deduction of TDS.

Now, on examination of all the aspects of the case and on comparative studies of the statements of both the parties this Commission is of the opinion that the complainant has failed to prove her case beyond any reasonable doubt and the same is reflected by the documents filed by herself. In view of the scenario prevailing in the country during the material period no deficiency of service is found on the bank’s part.

Accordingly, this Commission is of considered opinion that the OP bank cannot be held responsible for belated issuance of form-16A and as a result the instant petition is without any substance and the same deserves dismissal.

Hence it is

                                                ORDERED

that the complaint case No.149/18 be and the same stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

        Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.

The final order will be available in the website www.confonet.nic.in