Samaresh Kumar Mitra, Presiding Member.
This case has been filed U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant that he procured a FD ref no. 50070381 for ten years from the opposite party for one lakh of rupees on 6.3.2007 (Vardhan Account) linked to his account no. 064901000008928 @ 10.25% interest per annum and the date of maturity of the instrument was on 6.3.2017 and the sum assured was Rs. 2,75,000/- but an amount of Rs.253525/- was credited in his above mentioned account on 6.3.2017 instead of Rs. 275000/- and another around Rs. 2000/- was credited after long chasing and total deduction stands Rs. 24,929/- without any intimation and not to mention the issue of TDS certificates which is mandatory and to issue TDS certificate by the deductor is mandatory in accordance with the provision of Sec 203 of the IT Act, 1961 and failure to issue the certificates in time attracts penalty of Rs.100/- per day of default Sec 272A(2)(g) of the IT Act and the deductor has been stringently instructed in the mentioned IT Act to issue TDS certificate in Form 16A in time laid down by the Act and on such silent deductions of TDS the complainant suffered a loss of Rs.20,000/- approximately and the opposite party issued all the TDS certificates in Form 16A on 20.3.2017 causing huge financial and mental loss and complainant lodged two grievances dt. 28.11.2018 and 17.12.2018 to the GM/ Kolkata-1, 119, White House Park St. Pin-700016 of Indian Overseas Bank requesting compensation of Rs.22000/- but after receiving said two grievances on 30.11.2018 and 24.12.2018 they did not take any action.
Complainant filed the complaint petition praying directions upon the opposite party to return entire deducted amount i.e. Rs.20,000/ approx and to pay sum of Rs.10,000/- for compensation and to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- for harassment, detriment and mental loss and to pay sum of Rs. 1000/- for litigation cost and to impose penalty on deductor for violation IT Act and to direct the opposite party to take care of Sec 203 of IT Act in letter and spirit to avoid future harassment of the account holder.
The opposite party contested the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegations as leveled against him. This opposite party submits that the complainant initially deposited a sum of Rs. 1 lakh on 19.4.2006 in connection with R.D.P. account for a period of 60 months and as it was a pre matured closure and that’s why of R.D.P. amount 1 lakh was reconsidered for a period of 10 years expiring the date of maturity i.e. on 6.3.2017 and the sum assured was fixed at Rs. 2,75,000/- and the interest was fixed @ 10.25% payable to the complainant and the question of loss of Rs.20,000/- does not arise at all and the complainant did not make any contact to collect T.D.S. certificates though he was told by opposite party repeatedly to collect T.D.S. certificates, if any from the bank and the complainant did not file or show any document showing his yearly income as per Income Tax Return filed by him. The complainant on the basis of Form 16A is entitled to get required benefit from the Income Tax Department. So there is no deficiency on the part of opposite party bank.
The complainant filed evidence on affidavit which is nothing but replica of complaint petition and supports the averments of the complainant in the complaint petition and denial of the written version of the opposite party.
The answering opposite party filed evidence on affidavit which transpires the averments of the written version so it is needless to discuss.
Complainant and opposite party filed written notes of argument. The evidence on affidavit and written notes of argument of both sides are taken into consideration for passing final order.
Argument as advanced by the complainant and by the agent of the opposite party heard in full.
From the discussion herein above, we find the following issues/points for consideration.
Issues/points for consideration
- Whether the complainant is the consumer of the opposite party or not?
- Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief or not?
DECISIONS WITH REASONS
All the points are taken together for easiness of the discussions of this case.
1) In the light of the discussion hereinabove and from the materials on record, it transpires that the complainant is a Consumer as provided by the spirit of Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complainant herein is a consumer of the opposite party.
2) Both the complainant and the opposite party are residents/having their office addresses within the district of Hooghly. Considering the claim amount of complainant as per prayer of the petition of complainant it appears that those are not exceeding Rs.50,00,000/-. So, this Forum/ commission has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case.
3). After perusing the Complaint Petition, Written version as filed by the opposite party and the documents as filed by the complainant during the time of filing the complaint petition and hearing the arguments as advanced by the complainant it appears that the complainant being a retired person deposited a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as a fixed deposit before the opposite party for 10 years on 06.03.2007 and the date of maturity fixed on 06.03.2017. After the maturity the opposite delivered Rs.2,53,525/- instead of Rs.275,000/-. The complainant several times visited the opposite party for getting Form 16A so that he can refund the deducted amount by filing return before the Income Tax Department. The Form 16A as issued by the opposite party clearly depicts that a sum of Rs.24,929/- was deducted as tax from the account of the complainant.
Getting no refund from the IT department the complainant filed the instant complaint case before this Forum/ Commission alleging deficiency of service of the opposite party.
The opposite party contested the case by filing written version and denied the allegations as leveled against him. This opposite party submits that the complainant initially deposited a sum of Rs. 1 lakh on 19.4.2006 in connection with R.D.P. account for a period of 60 months and as it was a pre matured closure and that’s why of R.D.P. amount 1 lakh was reconsidered for a period of 10 years expiring the date of maturity i.e. on 6.3.2017 and the sum assured was fixed at Rs.2,75,000/- and the interest was fixed @ 10.25% payable to the complainant and the question of loss of Rs.20,000/- does not arise at all and the complainant did not make any contact to collect T.D.S. certificates though he was told by opposite party repeatedly to collect T.D.S. certificates, if any from the bank and the complainant did not file or show any document showing his yearly income as per Income Tax Return filed by him. The complainant on the basis of Form 16A is entitled to get required benefit from the Income Tax Department. So there is no deficiency on the part of opposite party bank.
It appears from the letter dated 04.02.2022 that the opposite party deducted a sum of Rs.3217/- on 28.03.2012, a sum of Rs.1724 on 26.09.2012, a sum of Rs.1816/- on 24.03.2013, a sum of Rs.1870/- on 27.09.2013, a sum of Rs.1970/- on 25.03.2014, a sum of Rs.2032/- on 28.09.2014, a sum of Rs.2138/- on 29.03.2015, a sum of Rs.2200/- on 27.09.201, a sum of Rs.2905/- on 26.03.2016, a sum of Rs.2596/- on 25.10.2016 & a sum of Rs.2358/- on 07.04.2017. The Traces last updated on 17.03.2017 reflects that amount credited in the account of the complainant amounting to Rs.8621/- on 25.09.2012 and a sum of Rs.1724 as tax deposited on 06.10.2012, amount credited Rs.9079/- on 24.03.2013 and tax deposited Rs.1816/- on 17.04.2013, similarly amount credited Rs.13039/- on 27.03.2014 and tax deposited Rs.2289/- on 30.03.2014, amount credited Rs.12532/- on 30.09.2013 and tax deposited Rs.2188/- on 05.10.2013, amount credited Rs.10160/- on 22.09.2014 and tax deposited Rs.2032/- on 07.10.2014, amount credited Rs.18260/- on 29.03.2015 and tax deposited Rs.2138/- on 31.03.2015 & amount credited Rs.18570/- on 27.09.2015 and tax deposited Rs.2200/- on 06.10.2015. So it is palpably clear that the opposite party bank deducted the TDS in the account of the complainant and deposited the same before the income department. It is the duty of the complainant to get return of the TDS by filing income tax return. In this case the complainant assailed that the opposite party deducted the TDS from his account but did not deposit the same within the stipulated time under section of Income Tax Act,1961 as a result the complainant did not get refund within the time. So the complainant being aggrieved filed the instant complaint case before this Forum.
There is no allegation against the opposite party in respect of deduction & deposit of tax. The allegation against the opposite party is that they could not deposit the TDS in time so the complainant did not get return. According to this complainant the opposite party violated Sec. 203 of the IT Act, 1961 as a result the complainant suffered a lot. So the complainant prayed for directions as incorporated in the prayer portion of the complainant petition.
So we may safely conclude that the TDS as deducted from the account of the complainant was deposited in the account of the Income Tax Department within a few days after the deductions. So there is no willful delay or negligence on the part of the opposite part. As such the deficiency of service against the opposite party is not proved beyond the reasonable doubt.
4) The discussion made herein above, we have no hesitation to come in a conclusion that the Complainant petition has no leg to stand so it is deserved to be dismissed. So there is no question to allow compensation.
-
Hence, it is ordered that the complaint case being no.27 of 2019 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the opposite party.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.
