PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Vs. KIRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts as can be gathered from the record briefly stated are that H.U.F., property of Bis Ram, father -in -law of the complainant was acquired and out of the amount of land compensation received by the family, fixed deposit receipt (in short referred to FDR) to the tune of Rs. 8,60,500 was issued by Sukhrali Branch of the opposite party No. 1 on 6.10.1998. The remaining amount received on account of land compensation totalling Rs. 94,78,087 was deposited in the name of other family members of the complainant with the said Branch. The FDR amount of Rs. 8,60,500 had matured on 24.11.1999 with net interest accrued at Rs. 13,945 but the opposite party No. 1 refused to credit the interest in the saving bank account of the complainant on the ground that on 13.10.1998 an order of provisional attachment under Section 281B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1961), was received by the opposite party No. 1 in respect of the F.D.Rs. made in the name of the family members including the F.D.R. of the complainant. In terms of the deposits made, the opposite party No. 1 discounted the F.D.R. issued in the name of the complainant on 24.11.1999 after crediting the interest amount after making deduction of Income -Tax at source in his saving bank account with the opposite party No. 1 and also the same procedure was followed with regard to the other FDRs issued in the name of other family members. The opposite party No. 1 not only held up the entire amount of the FDRs of Rs. 54,52,492 out of the total FDRs of Rs. 94,78,087 owned by various family members of the complainant but also the interest accrued thereon. Bis Ram, father -in -law of the complainant who alone was liable to pay the income tax had paid the entire amount of Income Tax due from him at Rs. 40,25,595 on 31.12.1998 from the amounts of the FDRs owned by his sons. In this manner an amount of Rs. 15,570 has been credited on 27.9.2001 and after deduction of tax deducted at source, amount of Rs. 13,982 is lying credited in the account of the complainant. The petitioner has been denied of the benefit of interest income due on 24.5.2000 which was to be credited on 27.9.2001 and also the interest income due on the FDR in question from 24.5.2000 to 15.3.2001. The accrued interest was to be paid in cash or credited in the saving bank account of the complainant. The complainant has been denied interest income on the FDR amount of Rs. 8,89,748 for the period mentioned in the complaint. Forced by these circumstances, the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Forum seeking direction to the opposite parties to pay interest @ 15% per annum on the amount of Rs. 8,89,748 of the FDR for the period in question which comes to Rs. 1,23,883 to pay damages on Rs. 10,000 and Counsel fee of Rs. 2,500. In all the complainant has claimed Rs. 1,36,383 as compensation from the opposite parties. The complaint was contested by the opposite parties. In the written statement filed it was pleaded that after receipt of the notice provisional attachment order under Section 281 -B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rules 20 and 22 and 26 of Second Schedule of Act, 1961 issued by the Income Tax Authorities, as per order dated 13.10.1998, the opposite party were not competent to entertain any request of the assessee and expansion of the attachment order from time -to -time, no deficiency of service could be attributed to them. With regard to the payment of interest amount for the period in question, it was further stated that the complainant had made a written request on 15.11.1999 for the renewal of the FDR after 14.2.2000 for a period of 91 days and for that reason interest amount claimed for the period subsequent thereto as mentioned in the complaint was not payable to the complainant as the other due amount in question was paid to the Income Tax Department. The complaint was also resisted on the ground that the Income Tax Officer was a necessary party and as he has not been so impleaded, the complaint is bad for misjoinder of the necessary parties. Accordingly, it was prayed that the complaint merited dismissal.

(2.) TAKING into account the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record the District Forum concluded that as the amount of the FDR remained deposited even after the maturity with the bank in terms of the provisional attachment order issued by the Income Tax Authorities, the opposite parties had been using the amount of the FDR and enjoyed its usufruct during the period in question and for that reason the complainant was entitled to receive the amount along with consequential benefits. Accordingly, direction was given to the opposite parties as per order dated 7.6.2006 to pay interest @ 9% per annum till the date of actual payment of the aforesaid amount. In addition Rs. 2,000 has been awarded as compensation. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum the opposite parties have come up in appeal.

(3.) NONE appeared to argue the matter on behalf of the appellant -opposite parties at the time of arguments. Learned Counsel representing the respondent -complainant has been heard at length.