03-09-2015 – Heard Mr. R.K. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. He assailed the impugned order and submitted that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.- appellant ( Bank for short).

2.     He filed supplementary affidavit to show that actually Rs. 1001/- and Rs.1142/- = Rs. 2143/- were deducted as T.D.S but by mistake it was said before the learned District Consumer Forum that Rs. 4101/- was deducted as T.D.S and thus the complainant can receive the balance amount of Rs. 3998/- from the Bank, instead of Rs. 2040/- as mentioned in the impugned order.

3.     The learned District Forum has interalia, held that the Bank did not produce anything to show that it was entitled to deduct T.D.S without verifying the fact whether the complainant’s income came under taxable income or not. It also held that the Bank did not produce anything to show that the complainant was asked whether his income is taxable or not, before deducting the T.D.S. It held that thus the Bank paid Rs. 6141/- less from the maturity value.

4.     Thus, the Bank admitted that it deducted T.D.S on the maturity value of the two fixed deposits of the complainant. It is true that there is nothing to show that the complainant deposited the required form for not deducting T.D.S but it is also true that there is nothing to show that the Bank asked the complainant to deposit such form, or verified whether the complainant had taxable income or not. Further, from the supplementary affidavit filed to-day it appears that the Bank has been acting negligently.

5.     The learned District Forum has rightly directed the Bank to pay      Rs. 6141/- with penal interest @ 18% P.A. from 3.11.2009, till realization and also Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 500/- as litigation cost.

6.     After hearing Mr. Sinha at length and considering the materials brought on the record, in our opinion, no grounds are made out for interference with the impugned order.

        Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

This matter was heard by the bench consisting of the President and the Member Mrs. Sumedha Tripathi.  After the order was dictated with her consent, she informed that she would be absent for her treatment, and she is not sure when she will be available. Therefore this order is being pronounced and signed by the President,  keeping in view the judgement of Hon’ble Kerala High Court dated 25.02.2013, passed in W.P. (C) No.30939 of 2010 (N) - P.K. Jose - vs - M. Aby & Ors.

                    Issue free copy of this order to all concerned for information and needful.

                        Ranchi,

                        Dated:-03-09-2015