Andhra Pradesh

Nellore

CC/60/2014

Gunapati Jayaramaiah - Complainant(s)

Versus

1.Chief Manager,Indian OverseasBank - Opp.Party(s)

K.Padmanabaiah

30 Nov 2015

ORDER

                                                             Date of filing       :  11-08-2014

                                                             Date of disposal  :   30-11-2015

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

           :: NELLORE ::

                                                       

Monday, this the 30th day of NOVEMBER, 2015.

 

          PRESENT:  Sri M.Subbarayudu Naidu, B.Com.,B.L., LL.M.        

                                      President(FAC)& Member

                                      Sri N.S.Kumara Swamy, B.Sc., LL.B., Member

                            

       

                                 C.C.No.60/2014

 

1. Gunapati Jayaramaiah,

S/o.Subba Raghavaiah,

26-2-1728, S & T Apartments,

Vedayapalem, Nellore-4.

 

 

2. Gunapati Panchaksharamma,

W/o.Gunapati Jayaramaiah,

26-2-1728, S & T Apartments,

Vedayapalem, Nellore-4.                           …         Complainants

 

                      Vs.

                                                                            

1. Chief Manager,

Indian Overseas Bank,

Central Office, 763 Annasalai,

Chennai-600002.

 

2. Manager, Indian Overseas Bank,

Auto Nagar Branch, Nellore-4,

SPSR Nellore District.                                 …            Opposite parties

 

This matter coming on 25-11-2015 before us for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.Padmanabhaiah, Advocate for the complainants and  Sri P.Gangadhar Reddy,                                       

Advocate for the opposite parties and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum passed the following:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

ORDER                                                                                                                                                                                                                          (BY SRI M.SUBBARAYUDU NAIDU, PRESIDENT (FAC) ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH)

 

       This complaint is filed against the opposite parties to direct them to pay interest @ 18% p.a., on Rs.31,233/- from 19-03-2010 to 18-05-2011 is Rs.6,559/-;  to pay balance amount after deducting Rs.21,055/- from Rs.31,233/- which was paid by complainant to the opposite parties Rs.10,178/-;  to pay interest @18% p.a. on 10,178/- from 19-05-2011 to 06-08-2014 is Rs.5,967/-;  to pay auditor fee of Rs.1500/-; compensation for mental agony is Rs.15,000/- ; to pay legal charges of Rs.10,000/- and a total amount to be payable by the opposite parties to the complainant of Rs.49,204/- and the opposite parties may be directed to pay the said total amount of Rs.49,204/- with subsequent interest on Rs.10,178/- @18% p.a., from the date of the complaint till the payment and grant such other and further reliefs as the Hon’ble Forum may deemed it fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

 

The factual matrix leading to filing of this consumer case is as stated as hereunder:

 1.(a)It is the case of the complainants/claimants that both of them had deposited ten (ten) fixed deposits  jointly in their names bearing nos.4100700028; 4100700029; 4100700030; 420700045;420700046; 420700047; 420700048; 420700049; 420700050 and 420700051  for a worth of Rs.1,00,000/- each and totally a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- on        10-05-2007.  They were also opened savings bank account jointly bearing no.4472 in 2^nd opposite party’s bank.  As per understanding with opposite parties’ bank,  with complainant, the 2^nd opposite party should credit in the joint savings bank account of complainants/claimants bearing no.4472 with monthly and quarterly interest accrues from the above said fixed deposits worth Rs.10,00,000/-.  The opposite parties credited the above said interest into complainants/claimants SB account regularly.

 

(b)   It is also further submitted by the complainants/claimants in para-3 at page no.2 of their complaint that the complainants/claimants had submitted PAN along with FORM No.15H.  While so, the Income Tax department raided the 2^nd opposite party’s bank in the month of March, 2010.  The said income tax department detected some irregularities in maintaining accounts of complainants opposite parties’ bank.  After the raid by Income Tax Department, the complainants/claimants received a notice from the 2^nd opposite party’s bank demanding to pay Rs.31,233/- towards TDS amount for the fixed deposits of complainants/claimants.  Accordingly, the complainants/claimants had issued a cheque in favour of 2^nd opposite party bank for Rs.31,233/- towards TDS amount which was demanded by the 2^nd opposite party.  After sending the said cheque to the bank, the complainants/claimants engaged their auditor before Income Tax Department contending that they are not covered under income tax payment. The 2^nd opposite party had issued form-16A to the complainants/claimants stating that it credited the said amount to Income Tax Department.  The complainants/claimant’s auditor’s contention about the non-payment of income tax by claimants was accepted and complete income tax amount was exempted to the complainants/claimants by Income Tax Department.

 

 

( c )       It is also further submitted by the complainants/claimants in para-3 at  page no.2 of their complaint that after said exemption from the Income Tax Department had sent TDS refund amount to the complainants/claimants for the years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 for 2 years only.  The balance amount relating to 2007-2008 was not paid by the Income Tax Department as the said period amount was not credited to the Income Tax Department by the 2^nd opposite party. The Income Tax Department paid to the complainants/claimants an amount of Rs.21,055/- out of Rs.31,233/-.  The balance amount of Rs.10,178/- was not paid to the complainants/claimants by the Income Tax Department as 2^nd opposite party was not credited the said amount to the Income Tax Department, which was paid by the complainants/claimants towards TDS amount.  This amount of Rs.10,178/-  was not paid to the Income Tax Department by the 2^nd opposite party for the reasons best known to them.  The said non-payment of Rs.10,178/- amounts to deficiency of service by the opposite parties.  If the amount of Rs.31,233/- was credited to the Income Tax Department by the 2^nd opposite party, the Income Tax Department would have paid the balance amount of Rs.10,178/- to the claimants.  The said non-payment of TDS amount to the Income Tax Department by the 2^nd opposite party due to negligence and deficiency of service of 2^nd opposite party.  In spite of several notices by the complainants/claimants, the opposite parties did not come for payment of Rs.10,178/- to the complainants/claimants, which should be paid by the opposite parties to the complainants/claimants. 

 

(d)  There are causes of action to file the complaint before this Hon’ble Forum. The complainants/claimants are consumers and the complaint is a consumer dispute between the parties to the complaint as it is within the definition of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  There is a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties towards the complainants/claimants.  Hence, the complaint.

 

II.  DEFENCE:

 

      The 2^nd opposite party was resisted the complaint by filing a written version/counter dt.27-02-2015 and an adoption memo filed on behalf of the 1^st opposite party in all particulars on 15-10-2015  and  denying the allegations of the complainant.  Those allegations of complainant are false and the complaint is not maintainable either in law on facts. 

 

(i)    The opposite parties had accepted complainants/claimants deposits as stated in the complaint, but denied the other allegations in para-3 of the complaint.

 

(ii) It is submitted by the 2^nd opposite party in para–5 of their written version/counter that the complainants/claimants had not submitted PAN  along with FORM No.15H.  While so, the Income Tax Department verified the accounts of 2nd opposite party’s bank in the month of March, 2010   and detected some irregularities in maintaining accounts of the complainants/claimants, 2nd opposite parties’ bank and after the raid by Income Tax Department, they directed the 2^nd opposite party to issue notice to the complainants/claimants demanding to pay Rs.31,233/- towards TDS amount along with interest for the fixed deposits of complainants/claimants and accordingly the complainants/claimants issued a cheque in favour of the 2^nd opposite party bank for Rs.31,233/- towards TDS amount and the said amount was credited in to the Income Tax Department as per the directions of the same.  Later on, the complainants/claimants engaged their auditor before Income Tax Department contenting that they are not covered under Income Tax payment and the 2nd opposite party issued Form 16A to the complainants/claimants stating that they credited the said amount to the Income Tax Department.  As there was some delay and discrepancy in between the Income Tax Department and the 2^nd opposite party, it causes some delay and the Income Tax Department paid to the complainants/claimants an amount of Rs.21,055/- out of Rs.31,233/- and the balance amount of Rs.10,178/- was not paid to the complainants/claimants by the Income Tax Department.  The 2^nd opposite party had finally issued Form 16A manually but the complainants/claimants lost somewhere and claiming the same blaming the 2^nd opposite party for non-issuance of the same and non-crediting the said amount to the income tax department, which was paid by the income tax department to the 2^nd opposite party.  The 2^nd opposite party had credited the said amount of Rs.10,178/- to the income tax department, there are no latches or negligence in crediting of TDS amount to the Income Tax Department by the 2^nd opposite party.  It is humbly submitted that the 2^nd opposite party is ready and willing to issue fresh copy of Form 16A which was already issued to the complainants/claimants earlier.

 

   It is the transaction between the complainants/claimants and the Income Tax Department and the complainants/claimants had unnecessarily dragged the 2^nd opposite party in to litigation with an intention to get wrongful gain and causes inconvenience and loss to them. The complainants are not entitled any reliefs sought for in the complaint.

III.      The chief-affidavit of the complainant had filed on 02-07-2015 and also filed the documents which are marked as Exs.A1 to A8 whereas the 2^nd opposite party had also filed chief-affidavit on 29-07-2015 and also filed the documents which are marked as Exs.B1 and B2.  The respective counsels for the parties had submitted their written arguments, on 02-7-2015 for complainants/claimants side, whereas, the opposite parties filed their written arguments on 15-10-2015.     

 

IV.   Basing on the material available on the record, the points that arise for determination are namely:-

 

(a)Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite

    parties towards the complainants?

(b)Whether the complainants is entitled to get the reliefs as

    prayed for, if it is so, to what extent?

                   (c) To what relief?

 

V.  POINTS 1 AND 2 :

 

     In view of these two points are inter-related and depends on each other, they have been taken up together for discussion and determination of the case.  The complainants have once again reiterated the facts of the case, basing on the complaint and documents filed herein.  It is nothing but repetition of them once again in his complaint.

 

Oral Submissions by the learned counsel for the complainants:

 

         The learned counsel for the complainants/claimants Sri K.Padmanabhaiah has vehemently argued that the complaint, affidavit and written arguments may be read as part and parcel of his oral arguments.  He has further argued that 2^nd opposite party had not credited an amount of Rs.10,178/- to the Income tax department in the names of complainants/claimants.  The further contentions of the said learned counsel for complainants/claimants are that the said non-payment of TDS amount of Rs.10,178/- to the Income tax department by 2^nd opposite party because of its negligence and deficiency in service.  The 2^nd opposite party had not so far credited the said amount of Rs.10,178/- in the saving account of complainants for the reasons best known to it.  Finally, he has urged that the 2^nd opposite party-bank did not place all the records before the Hon’ble Forum pertaining to the financial years 2007-2008; 2008-2009 and 2009-2010.  Moreover, the complainants are exempled from paying income tax to the department.  The complainants have not received an amount of Rs.10,178/- from the 2^nd opposite party.  The opposite parties have committed gross-negligence and also deficiency in service towards the complainants.  The said learned counsel for the complainants has finally prayed that the Hon’ble Forum may please to allow the complaint with costs.

 

Oral Submissions by the learned counsel for the opposite parties:

 

  On the other hand,  Sri P.Gangadhara Reddy, the learned counsel of the opposite parties has also vehemently argued that the 2^nd opposite party-bank had submitted that the Income tax department paid to the complainants an amount of Rs.21,055/- out of Rs.31,233/- and the balance amount of Rs.10,178/- was  not paid to the complainants by the income tax department.  He has further argued that it is false to state that the said non-payment of Rs.10,178/- amounts to deficiency in service by the opposite parties.  It is also false to state that if the amount of Rs.31,233/- was credited to the Income tax department by the 2^nd opposite party, the income tax department would have paid the balance amount of Rs.10,178/- to the complainants.  It is also false to state that the said non-payment of TDS amount to the Income tax department by 2^nd opposite party due to negligence and deficiency in service of 2^nd opposite party.  The 2^nd opposite party had issued Form 16A to the complainants which are marked as Exs.B1 and B2 stating that 2^nd opposite party  credited the said amount of Rs.31,233/- to the income tax department.

 

          The said learned counsel for opposite parties has further contended that as there was some delay and discrepancy in between the Income tax department and 2^nd opposite party, it causes some delay and income tax department paid to the complainants an amount of Rs.21,055/- out of Rs.31,233/- and the balance amount of Rs.10,178/- was not paid to the complainants by the income tax department.  The 2^nd opposite party had finally issued Forum 16A manually but the complainants lost somewhere and claiming the same blaming 2^nd opposite party for non-issuance of the same and non-crediting the said amount to the Income tax department which was paid by the income tax department to the 2^nd opposite party.  The 2^nd opposite party had credited the said amount of Rs.10,178/- to the Income tax department and there are no latches or negligence in crediting of TDS amount to the Income tax department.  Finally, he has argued that the complainants had unnecessarily dragged the 2^nd opposite party into litigation with an intention to get wrongful gain and cause inconvenience and loss to the opposite parties.  He has prayed that the Hon’ble Forum may please to dismiss the complaint with costs.

 

Forum’s Findings and observations

       Heard, the learned counsel for the both parties and perused the record very carefully. The nature of liability under the C.P.Act, 1986 is not strict liability but fault liability. Parties led their evidence by way of affidavits and produced their documentary evidence.  We have also taken into consideration the oral arguments of the said learned counsel for the parties.

 

       To resolve this consumer dispute, it is required that full details maintained by the opposite parties-bank pertaining to the complainants savings bank account, when it is debited and credited by 2^nd opposite party. Surprisingly, the full details of the bank, is not available with us to verify them.  It is an admitted fact and accepted that the complainants had issued a cheque for Rs.31,233/- in favour of 2^nd opposite party.  It is absolutely true according to the version of opposite parties.  Thereafter, the Income Tax department had refunded the said amount of Rs.31,233/- to the 2^nd opposite party. How much 2^nd opposite party received amount from Income Tax department by way of refund payable to the complainants, is not shown by documentary evidence by 2^nd opposite party for the reasons best known to it.  The 2^nd opposite party is capable and can show all the details of the account of the complainants and it is clearly written in the books of accounts but 2^nd opposite party is intentionally not produced before us to verify to come to conclusion.  An adverse inference can be drawn against the opposite parties for their attitude and behavior and it amounts to sheer negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties towards the complainants.  The opposite parties are clearly abstained to produce the details of the accounts of the complainants.  What prevented them (opposite parties) to do so, is not explained.  Their defence is that they are correct, if it is so, why can’t they produce it before us.   What about the remaining balance of Rs.10,178/- which is payable to the complainants?  What happened to it and in which account it was credited at that relevant period.  There is no answer for that by 2^nd opposite party to the Forum.  It means that withholding information and not furnishing correct details.

 

Description of the documents filed by the parties to the complaint:

    Ex.A1  is the copy of the registered legal notice dt.11-03-2014 issued by the counsel for the complainants to the 2^nd opposite party-bank; Ex.A2 is an acknowledgement card; Exs.A3 and A4; they are the Form No.16A issued dt.3-5-2010; Exs.A5 is relating to 2^nd complainant, Forum no.15H by her; Exs.A6 is another registered legal notice dt.29-10-2011 issued by the counsel for the complainants to the 2^nd opposite party; Ex.A7; it is the letter dt.27-01-2012 issued by the 1^st opposite party to the counsel for the complainant and Ex.A8  is the letter dtd.8-4-2011 issued by the 2^nd complainant to the Income tax department, Nellore and whereas the opposite parties filed the documents Exs.B1 and B2.  Ex.B1 is the Form no.16A for the assessment year 2008-2009 for the period from 1-7-2007 to 30-09-2007; Ex.B2; is the Forum no.16A for the assessment year 2008-2009 for the period from 1-1-2008 to 31-3-2008.  What about for the assessment year 2009 to 2010 for the period from 1-4-2008 to 31-03-2009?  It is not filed by the opposite parties for the reasons best known to them.  It is not correct view of the 2^nd opposite party bank has not placed before us all the documentary evidence in support of the case.

 

            The onus shifts to the opposite parties to explain the deductions made by the Income tax department with regard to complainants.  At last, exemption from tax was available to them.  Refund must be the entire the said cheque amount but shortage and remaining balance, in which account it was credited to whom and when it was done in whose favour.  No record is available with us to verify them.  The complainants placed before us all the details with figures.  But, the opposite parties are deliberately, did not say about the remaining balance of the said cheque amount in anywhere in their version.  It creates doubt about their bonafieds.  The complainants have claimed interest  @ 18% p.a., right from the period due but it is admissible only 9% p.a..  In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that in the interests of justice, the complainants are entitled to lump sum amount of Rs.30,000/-.  They are also entitled costs of Rs.5,000/- of the complaint.  There is a deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the opposite parties towards the complainants.  The opposite parties are miserably failed in their attempt to satisfy us with their oral submissions.  We are convinced with the arguments of the said learned counsel for the complainants.  Mental worry cannot be measured in terms of money.  The complainants are depositors of fixed deposits in opposite parties-bank.  They (opposite parties must protect the interests of the complainants.  Everything, it must be account for but the opposite parties are deliberately neglected and more over by way of their defence, it shows that there is no basis for it.  It is established that the opposite parties are clearly within definition of deficiency in service.  They must be suitable for punishment by way of awarding compensation against the opposite parties, such amount payable to the complainants.  These points are held in favour of the complainants and against the opposite parties, accordingly.

 

POINT NO.3: In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, ordering the opposite parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) being a lump sum amount to the complainants for compensation for mental agony suffered by them and they are also entitled to get a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards costs of the complaint payable to them within one month from the date of  receipt of the order.

 

Typed to the dictation to the stenographer and corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum this the 30th day of NOVEMBR, 2015.    

 

 

              Sd/-                                                                         Sd/-

         MEMBER                                                                 PRESIDENT(FAC)

  APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR COMPLAINANTS:

 

PW1

02-07-2015

:

Gunapati Jayaramaiah, S/o.Subba Raghavaiah, Hindu, aged about 83 years, unemployed residing at 26-2-1728, S&T Apartments, Vedayapalem, Nellore-4.

 

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES:

 

RW1

29-07-2015

:

S.Subramanyam, S/o. late Venkateswarulu, aged 58 years, hindu, working as Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Auto Nagar Branch, Nellore.

                                                                               

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR COMPLAINANTS:

 

Ex.A1	11-03-2014	:	Office copy of registered lawyer notice to 2nd opposite party along with registered post receipt.
Ex.A2	12-03-2014	:	Acknowledgement from the 2nd opposite party.
Ex.A3	03-05-2010	:	Photostat copy of Form No.16A under rule 31(1)(b) of Income Tax rules, 1962 issued by the 2nd opposite party.
Ex.A4	03-05-2010	:	Photostat copy of Form No.16A under rule 31(1)(b) of Income Tax rules 1962 issued by the 2nd opposite party.
Ex.A5     Ex.A6     Ex.A7     Ex.A8	15-04-2011     29-10-2011     27-1-2012     08-04-2011	:     :     :     :	Form 15H issued by the 2nd opposite party in favour of the 2nd complainant.   Office copy of legal notice got issued to the 2nd opposite party by the counsel for the complainants.   Reply notice by 1st opposite party to the advocate for the complainants.   Office copies of letters addressed by the complainants 1 and 2 to The Income Tax Officer, Nellore.

 

 

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES:                      

 

Ex.B1	13-11-2014	:	Form 16A, issued in favour of 1st complainant by the 2nd opposite party.
Ex.B2	13-11-2014	:	Form16A, issued in favour of 2nd complainant by the 2nd opposite party.

 

              Id/-                                                                                     PRESIDENT(FAC)

 

 

Copies to:

 

1. Sri  K.Padmanabhaiah, Advocate, 23/1301, Tekkemitta, Nellore-3.

 

2. Sri P.Gangadhara Reddy, Advocate, Nellore.

          

 

Date when order copies are issued: