Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/303/2020

Dr. Rohit Bansal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager, Axis bank branch - Opp.Party(s)

Vikas Malik & Rabinder Singh

18 Apr 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	303/2020
Date of Institution	:	16.07.2020
Date of Decision	:	18.04.2022

 

                                       

                       

 

Dr.Rohit Bansal s/o Sh.Ram Kumar Bansal, Proprietor of Dr.Bansal’s Skin Centre, SCO 910, 1^st Floor, Housing Board Chowk, NAC Manimajra, Chandigarh.

                                ...  Complainant.

Versus

1. Manager, Axis Bank Branch SCO 916, Pocket No.6, Shimla Road, Manimajra, Chandigarh (UT)-160101.

 

2. Through its Vice President, Axis Bank Ltd., Plot No.149, 1^st Floor, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh -160002.

…. Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:
	SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA,	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SHRI S.K.SARDANA	MEMBER
Argued by:-
	Sh.Rabinder Singh, Adv. for the complainant None for the OPs.

 

      

PER S.K.SARDANA, MEMBER

1.         Briefly stated, the facts of case as alleged by the complainant are that he is having savings bank account No.041010100093550 with OP No.2. The perusal of the bank statement for the period from 10.12.2016 to 15.12.2016 shows that amount of Rs.40,000/- was debited from his account on 15.12.2016 towards recovery of advance tax at source for the assessment year 2017-18  but the same was neither deposited in the tax account against complainant’s PAN No.AIQPB7558N nor reflected in his tax deposit statement against income tax account. On enquiry, it was revealed that the said amount was in fact deposited into some other income tax account connected with different PAN No.AIGPB7558N. It has further been averred that despite his repeated verbal as well as written requests, no action was initiated by the OPs till date to reverse the debited amount to his account. Finally, he got served a legal notice dated 04.10.2019 upon the OPs through e-mail as well as post, followed by reminder dated 06.12.2019. It has further been averred that the OPs in the letter dated 12.12.2019 written to the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula while admitting their mistake stated that they had wrongly deposited the advance tax amount of Rs.40000/- into PAN No.AIGPB7558N instead of PAN No.AIQPB7558N and requested the Commissioner of Income Tax to rectify the error but no rectification was done. Alleging that the aforesaid acts of omission and commission on the part of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         The OPs in their written statement, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, have pleaded that the amount of Rs.40,000/- as advance tax was wrongly deposited into PAN No.AIGPB7558N instead of PAN No.AIQPB7558N and  on coming to know about the mistake, they requested the Commissioner of Income Tax vide letter (Annexure C-5) for correcting the entries and requested for adjusting Rs.40,000/- in PAN No.AIQPB7558N and on being approached by the Operation Head of the OPs, they assured him to rectify the said entry within one month.  The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.         We have heard the Counsel for the complainant and have gone through the documents on record.
4.         The perusal of the documentary evidence on record reveals that the OPs have deducted a sum of Rs.40,000/- from the account of the complainant towards advance tax at source and wrongly deposited the same to some another PAN account instead of the complainant and on being approached, the said mistake has not been get rectified by the OPs till now, which itself amounts to deficiency in service on their part.
5.         In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. The opposite parties are directed to get the said mistake rectified from the competent authority within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.  They are also directed to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and physical harassment as well as litigation expenses.
6.         However, it is made clear that, in case, the OPs have failed to get the said mistake rectified from the competent authority within the stipulated period then they shall credit the amount of Rs.40,000/- to the account of the complainant along with interest as applicable on the savings bank account from the date of its deduction till its payment apart from the above reliefs.
7.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

 

Announced 18/04/2022
	Sd/- (PRITI MALHOTRA) PRESIDING MEMBER
	Sd/-
	(S.K.SARDANA) MEMBER