CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.

Case No. 156/2013

Dr. Vinay Kumar

R/o K-119, Hauz Khas Enclave,

New Delhi-110016                                                ……Complainant

Versus

ING Vysya Bank Ltd.

Green Park Branch H-2,

Green Park Extension,

New Delhi-110016                                                ……Opposite Party

                                                Date of Institution          :         02.04.2013                                                  Date of Order        :         10.08.2015

Coram:

Sh. N.K. Goel, President

Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member

O R D E R

Briefly stated, the case of the Complainant as made out from the perusal of the complaint, affidavit and the documents is that OP had misplaced the Form 15H which was acknowledged by the Op. The details of the 15 H which was duly acknowledged by the OP, duly officially stamped are as follows:

 Within three days of receipt of Form 16A dated 17.10.12 he informed the OP to tally and cross check its official records and rectify the error but it was in vain since there was no will to search his 15 H Form which was actually received by the OP.

He had enclosed three 15 H Forms to OP Bangalore office regarding deduction of tax. Mr. Mohd. Asif K. Sheikh working as Head account of OP Bangalore office wrongly deducted his money in a careless manner (Form 16A) totalling to Rs.496/- from his interest income from FD’s i.e. on 11 times in row/occasion and not once.

The OP could not find and locate the official record inspite of his letter dated 08.01.13.  Complainant has prayed as under:-

1. Direct the OP to pay Rs.496.00 as  interest accrued on FD’s from 01.07.12 to 30.09.12.
2.  Direct the OP to pay Rs.68.00 towards Xerox charges @ 1/- per page for 4 copies of 17 pages.
3. Direct the OP to pay Rs.100.00 on account of auto charges (transport to and fro) to discuss & lodging 2 letters dated 08.01.13 & 09.01.13 to GP Branch of OP @ Rs.50/- on 08.01.13 & 09.01.13.
4. Direct the OP to pay Rs.95.00 as postal charges of dispatch of letter to GP Branch and Bangalore Office of OP
5. Direct the OP to pay Rs.110.00 towards IPO of Rs.100/- and file cover required by Forum.
6. Direct the OP to pay Rs.130/- towards auto transport to and fro charges to file this complaint personally.
7. Direct the OP to pay Rs.11734.00 towards penalty for its default @ 1% of FD amounts for causing harassment to old senior citizen of advanced age of 70 years.
8. Direct the OP to pay Rs.300.00 towards auto transport to and fro charges for hearing on 3^rd July 13
9. Direct the OP to pay Rs.300.00 towards auto transport to and fro charges for hearing on 7^th July 13
10. Direct the OP to pay Rs.300.00 towards auto transport to and fro charges for hearing on 25^th July 13

When no one appeared on behalf of the OP, OP was proceeded exparte on 03.07.13 by our Predecessors.

We straightaway come to the question whether the TDS deduction on the FDRS from the Complainant by the OP was justified and, if so, whether Complainant is not entitled to any relief?

 Complainant filed his affidavit in evidence and written arguments. We have heard the Complainant in person.  Admittedly the Complainant had six FDRS for an amount of Rs.49,000/-, 30,000/-. 35,000/- 30,000/- 30,000/- and 21,000/- respectively.  It is pertinent to mention here that Complainant has not cared to mark Ex. Nos. or annexures nos. on the documents.  The OP had deducted TDS for an amount of Rs.496/- on the interest accrued in six FDRs.

 It transpires from the pleadings that an amount of Rs.496/- was deducted by the OP on account of interest accrued in FDRs and the OP issued the Form 16A to the Complainant.  The same amount was deposited by the OP with the Income Tax Authority.  If the   OP had charged the excess TDS on the interest accrued in six FDRs the Complainant should have approached the Income Tax Authority for refund of the amount while filing his income tax return with Form 16-A issued by the OP.  Therefore, we hold that there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP. Accordingly we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.

  Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations.  Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

Announced on 10.08.15.

(NAINA BAKSHI)                                                             (N.K. GOEL)  MEMBER                                                                        PRESIDENT