BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Complt. Case No :  857 of  2009

Date of Institution:    17.06.2009

Date of Decision  :    13.09.2010

Raj Vasudeva wife of Sh.Nitya Nand Sharma, R/o H.no.1841, Sector 34-D, Chandigarh.

……Complainant

V E R S U S

Bank of India, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh through its Manager.

.…..Opposite Party

CORAM:        SH.LAKSHMAN SHARMA            PRESIDENT

                SH.ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI         MEMBER

                MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA                  MEMBER

PRESENT:   Complainant in person.

Sh.K.P.S.Dhillon, Adv. for the OP.

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

                This complaint has been filed by Raj Vasudeva, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service by Bank of India due to wrong calculations of TDS Certificates.

1]             The facts of the case are as under:-

                The complainant had opened and was operating savings accounts as well as had fixed deposits with OP bank.  The OP had supplied TDS Certificates for interest accrued on the complainant’s accounts for Assessment Year 2007-08 (F.Y. 2006-07) on the basis of which the complainant had filed her income tax return.  Similarly, the OP had supplied TDS Certificate for Assessment Year 2008-09 (F.Y.2007-08) for which also the complainant had filed Income Tax Return.  These certificates were later found to be wrongly calculated.  The matter was pointed out to the Sr.Manager of the OP Bank but the mistake was not rectified. 

                The complainant then contacted the Banking Ombudsman to rectify the variation in interest in the account of the complainant and the consequent error in the TDS certificates issued to the complainant for Assessment Year 2007-08 and  2008-09.    After many reminders and correspondence, the bank finally sent the revised TDS Certificates on 22.4.2009.  On receipt of the revised TDS Certificates, the complainant had to file revised Income Tax Return for the two relevant assessment years.  The copies of all earlier and revised income tax returns furnished by the complainant have been placed as annexures in the file.  With the revision in return, the complainant was required to pay additional tax of Rs.6862/-.  The bank has also admitted the variations in calculations of TDS by its letter dated 26.2.2009 placed at Ann.C-6.  As per this letter, the bank had advised the complainant that the variation in interest and TDS Certificates for the relevant period had occurred due to system error. 

                The bank was required to freeze the account of the complainant as per the CBI Instructions, the interest could not be credited to the accounts of the complainant.  The complainant feels that the mistake has occurred due to its own system fault of its employee. 

                The complainant has alleged that she has suffered a huge loss due to deferment of calculation of interest for the two financial years and also incurred expenditure due to filing of revised IT Returns.  She also feels that the income tax department may doubt her for not showing the clear factual position of accounts.  Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP, the complainant has filed this complaint demanding compensation of Rs.1.00 lac. 

2]             After admission of the complaint, notice was sent to the OP.

                The OP in its reply has taken the preliminary objection that the complainant is showing only a notional loss and hence the complaint is not maintainable.  They have further submitted that the complainant had earlier filed a complaint before District Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh on same similar issues but the same was dismissed on 27.5.2008.  The appeal filed against the said order of the District Forum-I before the Hon’ble State Commission, U.T., Chandigarh was also dismissed on 9.7.2008.  In view of this, the complainant is barred by principle of resjudicata and principle of estoppel from filing the present complaint.  The complainant is now not entitled to raise the same and similar issue between the same parties again.  As per the OP, the present complaint should be dismissed on this ground alone.

                On merits, OP have contended that the complainant had approached the Banking Ombudsman regarding issuance of revised TDS Certificates.  A copy of the letter of Banking Ombudsman, has been placed at Ann.R-2.  The OPs have submitted that the CBI had registered a criminal case against the son of the complainant and operation of all accounts, lockers and FDRs in the name of the family were frozen, they could only provide information as per the data available with them, hence there was no deficiency on the part of the OP. 

                Further, the bank has already issued revised TDS Certificates after the release of restraint on the accounts of the complainant by the CBI on 22.4.2007.  This is not a case of system error of the bank as alleged by the complainant.  The TDS Certificates were prepared, as per data available in the system only. With regard to calculation of any additional tax due to revised TDS Certificates issued, it is the decision of the Income Tax Authority and the bank has nothing to say on this.  Submitting that there was no deficiency on their part, the OP have prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

3]             We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the evidence/documents placed on record by the parties.

4]             The complainant is aggrieved because of wrong/incomplete information provided by the OP Bank to her due to which the complainant had to file a wrong income tax return.  Subsequently, when correct information with regard to interest on bank account/FDRs was received from the OPs, the complainant had to file fresh/revised income tax return, which was not yet passed at the time of filing of the complaint.  The complainant is unhappy due to the faulty calculations of TDS and the consequences if any thereof. 

5]             The OP has submitted that there was a CBI Case pending due against the son of the complainant to which the CBI had frozen the accounts, lockers etc. pertaining to the complainant and all family members and hence they could only give information according to record available with them.  They had no authority to operate or update any information in respect of the accounts etc. frozen due to the orders of C.B.I. (Central Bureau of Investigation). 

6]             In this regard, the judgment of the Hon’ble State Commission, U.T., Chandigarh, passed in Appeal Case Nos.922 & 924 of 2008, decided on 9.7.2008, and placed at Ex.R-1 with the Written Arguments, needs to be perused.  As per this judgment, it is evident that in addition to the Saving Bank Accounts & F.D.Rs of the complainant and her family their joint lockers had also been frozen by the CBI.  A case under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(10)(D) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 120-B of IPC and 63 of I.F.Act were registered with C.B.I. against Sh.Harsh Kumar son of Nitya Nand Sharma and Smt. Raj Vasudeva wife of Sh.Nitya Nand Sharma.  CBI raided their house on 13.4.2006 and keys of locker No.387 were seized by the CBI and later on 17.4.2008 they also seized keys of lockers No.412 & 137.  Further, it is mentioned in the judgment that operation of locker was refused by the Manager of the Bank due to the orders of CBI.  The Bank was not allowed operation of any accounts and lockers existing in the name of the appellant (complainant in the present case). 

                On the request of the appellant, the bank had sought permission from CBI to allow operation of the lockers by the owners.  At that time no reference was given about the FDRs or bank accounts.  The CBI vide letter dated 15.4.2006 had stated that till further intimation operation of lockers as well as FDRs was not allowed.  The appeal of the appellants had thus been disallowed by the Hon’ble State Commission vide detailed order dated 9.7.2008 (Ex.R-1).

7]             There is nothing left in the case after perusal of the abovesaid judgment of Hon’ble State Commission.  The bank could not peruse, access and update the documents or make correct calculations of interest in the accounts of the complainant, because the accounts had been frozen by the C.B.I. under a corruption case.  No amount could be withdrawn and no amount could be credited whether interest or otherwise till the orders of the CBI were not issued for removal of freeze.     The bank at best could provide the TDS Certificates as per information available with them.  The data in respect of the accounts of the complainant frozen by the CBI remained inoperable not due to any fault or willful act of the OP Bank but due to the reasons beyond their control.  They could definitely not disobey the orders of CBI. 

                The product or the amount lying in the bank account of the complainant would remain frozen till the clearance by the Statutory Authority (CBI). This would mean that the interest, if any, accrued on the amount in the account would not be allowed to be credited to the account of the holder.  Only when the CBI would grant permission that the freeze on the account be removed, would the amount of interest be credited to the account of the customer. 

                When this amount was credited to the account of the customer, only then the TDS Certificate could have been issued for the same. Thus, no deficiency for delay for this act of the Bank can be alleged.

8]             In view of the above findings, we are of the opinion that no deficiency in service is attributed to the OP Bank.  Though the complainant has suffered due to wrong/incomplete TDS Certificates and has had to file revised income tax returns subsequently, but the lapse/error on the part of OP was unintentional and unavoidable.  No action was due to any deficiency or unfair trade practice.  The complaint is therefore dismissed.  

9]                Certified copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of any charge. The file be consigned to the record room after compliance.    

Announced

13^th Sept., 2010                                                            Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

                                                                   Sd/-

                                       (ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI)

MEMBER

                                                                                                Sd/-

                                                    (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

‘Om’