Punjab

Sangrur

CC/1535/2015

Ajmer Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

Shri G.S.Shergill

26 Aug 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  1535

                                                Instituted on:    24.11.2015

                                                Decided on:       26.08.2016

 

Ajmer Kaur wife of Late Diwan Singh, resident of Street No.3, Murari Lal Nagar, Bajakhana Road, Near Tarksheel Chowk, Barnala, Tehsil and District Sangrur.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                Versus

 

1.     Bank of India, Friends Colony, Near Mayur Hotel, Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

2.     District Treasury Officer, Sangrur.

                                                                ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :       Shri G.S.Shergill, Adv.

For OP No.1             :       Shri N.S.Sahni, Adv.

For OP No.2             :       Shri Pardeep Singh.

 

Quorum:   K.C.Sharma, Presiding Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : K.C.Sharma, Presiding Member

 

1.             Shri Ajmer Kaur, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant is the consumer of the Ops by opening a saving bank account bearing number 650510100002442 with the OP number 1. The husband of the complainant was working in Punjab Health Department and died during the service, as such the complainant was appointed as Class IV employee on compensatory ground. After that the department did not release the pension from 11.3.1995 to the complainant. It is further averred that the complainant filed civil writ petition number 16267 of 2014 before the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court which was disposed of on 22.8.2014 with a direction to the concerned department to consider the case of Ajmer Singh. It is further averred that after passing of the order, the office of the Accountant General Punjab vide letter dated 8.4.2015 intimated the complainant that an amount of Rs.6,68,125/- has been sent regarding the pension for the period from 1.4.1995 to 31.10.2014 which was credited in her account on 30.5.2015. It is further averred that the complainant was shocked to see that on 2.6.2015, the OP deducted an amount of Rs.55,235/- on account of TDS on arrears, as such, the complainant requested the Ops to refund the same, but all in vain. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to credit the amount of Rs.55,235/- in the account of the complainant along with interest @ 18% per annum and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by the OP number 1, it is stated that the story mentioned in the complaint is wrong and false and concocted one. However, it is admitted that an amount of Rs.55,235/- was deducted as TDS. It is stated that the complainant was requested to send her PAN card, so that the deduction of tax could be determined, but the same was not supplied, as such, it is stated that the amount of TDS has been deducted as per Income Tax Rules. It is stated further that as per the law, the responsibility of deduction of TDS is not of employer. The complainant has not given any letter regarding taking of relief under section 89(1) of the Income Tax Act nor the complainant submitted form 10(E) as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act. It is stated that the deduction has been rightly made and any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs has been denied.

 

3.             In reply filed by OP number 2, legal objections are taken up on the ground that the complainant is not a consumer of the OP and that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. On merits, it is admitted that the OPs released the amount of Rs.6,68,125/- after taking into consideration the orders of the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, which was credited in her account. It is further stated that the Ops have no role to play in deduction of the amount of Rs.55,235/- as the amount has been deducted by OP number 1.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied and any deficiency in service on the part of the Op has been denied.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 copy of bank passbook, Ex.C-2 copy of legal notice, Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-5 copies of receipts, Ex.C-6 copy of PAN card and Ex.C-7 affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP number 1 has produced Ex.Op1/1 affidavit, Ex.OP1/2 copy of letter dated 28.5.2015, Ex.OP1/3 copy of ITR of 2016-1, Ex.Op1/4 copy of form number 16, Ex.OP1/5 copy of reply of legal notice, Ex.OP1/6 copy of postal receipt and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits allowed, for these reasons.

 

6.             The version of the complainant is that as per the orders of the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court a sum of Rs.6,68,125/- was released by the Accountant General Punjab vide letter dated 8.4.2015 being the amount of pension from 11.3.1995 in respect of the complainant. The OP number 1 had illegally and arbitrarily deducted a sum of Rs.55,235/- as tax and due to this deficiency in service, the complainant had suffered a lot of tension and harassment.

 

7.             The OP number 1 had submitted that the complainant was informed about the deduction of the tax at source and a letter dated 2.8.2015 was also sent to the complainant and as such, the OP number 1 is not deficient in service.

 

8.             After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and on the perusal of the documents placed on record, we find that as per the document Ex.C-1, the OP number 1 had credited a sum of Rs.6,68,125/- without even waiting for the  reply of the letter sent to the complainant on 28.5.2015 and the same is Ex.OP1/2 on record. This shows that the complainant was not afforded any opportunity to bifurcate the pension year wise as the amount belongs to the pension from 1.4.1995 to 31.10.2014. The advocate for the complainant has argued vehemently that had the OP number 1 would have given the opportunity to the complainant to submit her version  with regard to the bifurcation of the pension year wise in response to OP number 1’s letter dated 28.5.2015, then instead of tax deduction  the OP number 1 would have taken the form number 15G or 15H as the annual pension was less than the taxable income.       

 

9.             But, the learned counsel for the OP number 1 has argued that the tax has been deducted rightly and the complainant had received the amount so deducted by filing the income tax return as per the document Ex.Op1/3.  The learned counsel for the OP number 1 has cited the judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission delivered in the Revision Petition No.453 of 2003 in the case of Unit Trust of India versus Kanwar Manmohan Singh, in which the version of the petitioner was “that the amount of income tax deducted at source was indicated in the Dividend Warrant(s) sent to the respondent and if TDS certificate were not received by the respondent, he could have applied for issuance thereof to the petitioners. It is not the case of the respondent that TDS certificates despite demand were not issued by the petitioner.”  So, we find that in this case, the question is that TDS certificates were not issued. But, the facts of the present case are different and as such, no reliance can be made on the judgment cited by the OP number 1 in the present complaint.  Here in the present complaint, the OP number 1 writes to the complainant on 28.5.2015 as per Ex.Op1/2 “please call on us immediately. If you fail to come, TDS will be deducted as per the Income Tax Rules”, but without even waiting for the complainant first, the OP Number 1 credited the full amount of Rs.6,68,125/- on 30.5.2015 and subsequently deducted a sum of Rs.55,235/- from the account of the complainant for tax. This all shows that it will not the intention of the OP number 1 to listen to the complainant rather the OP number 1 was bent upon to deduct the amount without caring that the annual pension, if it is bifurcated will not be taxable.

10.           The learned counsel for the complainant has also cited judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission delivered in the First Appeal No.103 to 2006 in the case titled as Prem Kumar and others versus Punjab National Bank, in which it has been held in para 12 that “From the above provisions of law under the Income Tax Act, 1961, it is clear that the respondent bank was required to deduct the income tax but was to hand over the 16(A) form year wise to its depositor from whom the income tax is deducted as T.D.S. (Tax Deducted at Source). The respondent bank has failed to do its statutory duty and commitment towards the depositor i.e. the appellants and the appellants were deprived of making tax adjustment or getting the refund of the same from the Tax Authorities. The prayer of the appellants for refund of the deducted amount cannot be accepted because this amount has been paid by the respondent bank to the Income Tax Authorities and the appellants can approach the Income Tax authorities but as discussed above, it was definitely deficiency in service on the part of the respondent bank not to issue form 16-A to the appellants or to inform them about the deduction of the T.D.S. and the respondent Bank is required to compensate the appellants for the same.”

 

11.           So, in the light of above discussion we find that the OP number 1 is deficient in service and as such, we partly allow the complaint and direct OP number 1 to pay to the complainant a consolidated amount of Rs.10,000/- being the amount for mental tension, agony and harassment and litigation expenses.

 

12.           This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication.  A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                August 26, 2016.                                              

                                                                (K.C.Sharma)

                                                            Presiding  Member

 

                                             

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member