BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.
Complaint No.149 of 2014
Instituted On:08.12.2014
Decided On:17.03.2015
Vinay Kashyap aged 57 years son of Sh Dev Pal Kashyap son of Sh. Jai Ram Dass, resident of Basant Singh Road, Civil Lines, Moga, Tehsil & District Moga.
……..Complainant
Versus
1. M/S Muthoot Finance Limited, SCO No.22, 2nd Floor, Improvement
Trust complex, Ferozepur Road, Moga, District Moga.
2. M/S Muthoot Finance Limited above AXIS Bank Near Dashmesh
Tower, Durgri Road, Ludhiana through its Regional Manager.
……… Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Coram: Sh.S.S.Panesar, President
Smt Vinod Bala, Member
Smt Bhupinder Kaur
Present: Complainant in person .
Sh.Rajiv Kumar, Advocate counsel for opposite parties
C.C.No. 149 of 2014 //2//
ORDER
(S.S.Panesar, President)
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after referred to as ‘Act’) against Muthoot Finance Limited, SCO No.22, 2nd Floor, Improvement Trust complex, Ferozepur Road, Moga, District Moga and another (herein-after referred to as ‘opposite parties’)-OPs directing them to pay the maturity value of the bonds amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- alongwith interest @15% per annum from the due date till the actual payment, to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment and also to grant any other relief to which this Forum may deem proper.
2. Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant deposited Rs.1,00,000/- vide two Subordinates Debt Certificate with opposite parties bearing Nos.SD842 and SD2474 dated 01.01.2009 and 18.02.2009 respectively with their maturity date 01.10.2014 and 18.11.2014. It has been pleaded that complainant invested amount in the name of his wife, daughter and son on the same day with the opposite parties and provided the Pan card in each and every accounts. After its maturity dates, the complainant presented the bonds to the opposite parties for making the payment. But the opposite parties informed the complainant that due to non-generating pan number in the computer system, 20% TDS has been deducted by the Regional office. On the investigation and enquiry, it has come to the notice that due to the mistake of the officials, the pan has not
C.C.No. 149 of 2014 //3//
been generated in their computer, whereas, the pan number in all other accounts of the family of the complainant, has been generated. It has been alleged that neither the opposite parties intimated the complainant about the deduction of the income tax nor they have supplied the TDS form No.16. The complainant approached the opposite parties and requested them to release the maturity value of the bonds. But the opposite parties did not hear the request of the complainant. Non- releasing the amount of the complainant by the opposite parties, amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Due to the negligent act of the opposite parties, the complainant is suffering from mental and physical harassment and economic loss. Hence the present complaint.
3. Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties, who appeared through their counsel Sh.Rajiv Kumar Advocate and filed joint written reply contesting the complaint. The opposite parties took preliminary objections to the effect that the complaint as framed is not maintainable since the complainant is himself at fault. At the time of accepting the Debt certificates, complainant had himself stated that he will get the refund of the TDS. After purchasing the bonds, neither the complainant approached the opposite parties nor gave any information with regard to deduction of TDS; that the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and he is guilty of concealment of material facts from the Forum; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and it is further stated that the transaction is commercial in
C.C.No. 149 of 2014 //4//
nature. On merits, it has been admitted that the complainant purchased the Subordinate Debt Certificates from the opposite parties, but it is stated that at the time of purchasing the bonds, the complainant himself tick mark on the column of the proposal form that he will get the refund of TDS by himself. Moreover, the complainant has not provided 15G form to the opposite parties. It is further stated that the complainant has not approached the opposite parties on due dates rather it is the opposite parties, who informed the complainant to receive the matured amount. The opposite parties are ready to refund one TDS amount of Rs.3763/- for the year 2012-2013 while the opposite parties are making all efforts to get the refund of the TDS for the year 2013-2014 amounting to Rs.4244/- from the Income Tax authorities. Other allegations made in the complaint have been specifically denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with costs has been made.
4. In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 and copies of documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-5 and closed his evidence.
5. To rebut the evidence of the complainant, Jagdeep Singh Branch Manager tendered his affidavit Ex.OP1&2/1 and closed evidence on behalf of opposite parties.
6. We have heard the complainant and the learned counsel for the opposite parties and have also carefully gone through the record.
7. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has contended that the
C.C.No. 149 of 2014 //5//
complainant had deposited Rs.1,00,000/- with the opposite parties through two Subordinate Debt Certificates bearing No. SD842 dated 01.01.2009 and No. SD2474 dated 18.02.2009 against which the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- each bond was due on 01.10.2014 and 18.11.2014 respectively. It is the case of the complainant that he had submitted pan card at the time of getting the bonds issued in his favour. But, however, the opposite parties deducted T.D.S. @10%, which the opposite parties were not entitled to. The complainant had already furnished Income Tax Return and also paid the due income tax on the income derived from interest. But, however, it is the case of the opposite parties that at the time of getting the bonds in dispute, the complainant had himself submitted that T.D.S. may be deducted from the interest earned from the bonds. The very fact that the opposite parties had got refunded Rs.3763/- for the year 2012-2013 from Income Tax Authorities & the fact that they are making all efforts to get the refund of the amount of Rs.4244/- shows that the opposite parties are already doing the needful in the matter. But, however, the complainant has absolutely got no cause of action to file the instant complaint. No consumer Dispute arises out of the pleadings of the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The opposite parties are ready to pay the due amount(s) to the complainant after deducting the amount of Rs.4244/-. Since that amount will be paid to the complainant after getting the same refunded from the Income Tax
C.C.No. 149 of 2014 //6//
Authorities, therefore, there is no force in the complaint and the same may be dismissed with costs.
8. On the other hand, complainant has vehemently contended that there is no denying the fact that the complainant deposited Rs.1,00,000/- vide two Subordinates Debt Certificate bearing Nos. SD842 and SD2474 dated 01.01.2009 and 18.02.2009 with maturity dates as 01.10.2014 and 18.11.2014 respectively. Though, the maturity dates for the Debt Certificates have expired long back, yet the opposite parties have failed to pay the due amount(s) to the complainant without any reason and excuse. The opposite parties want to retain Rs.4244/- on the excuse that TDS has been deducted for the year 2013-14. But, however, the same have been deducted illegally because complainant had already deposited income tax payable on the interest amount at the time of filing Income Tax Return. Even, letter dated 18.11.2014, copy whereof is Ex.C-4 clearly shows that the deduction on account of T.D.S has been made by the opposite parties illegally. Further fact that T.D.S. amount of Rs.3763/- for the year 2012-13 has already been got refunded by the opposite parties from the Income Tax Authorities and further stand of the opposite parties that an amount of Rs.4244/- has already been applied for refund from the Income Tax Authorities clearly exhibits that deductions have been wrongly made by the opposite parties. It is, therefore, contended that the complainant is entitled to full maturity amount on account of both the Debt Certificates, copies whereof are Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3 alongwith stipulated
C.C.No. 149 of 2014 //7//
interest from the date of maturity until full and final payment.
9. We have given thoughtful consideration to rival contentions.
10. The only dispute inter-se party have been as to whether the amount of Rs.3763/- and Rs.4244/- have been wrongly deducted as T.D.S. by the opposite parties or not ? The very stand of the opposite parties that an amount of Rs.3763/- on account of TDS deducted has already been refunded by the Income Tax Authorities to the opposite parties and further fact that the opposite parties have also applied for refund of amount of Rs.4244/-(T.D.S. deduction) goes to show that deductions have been made wrongly by the opposite parties. Further more, the opposite parties written letter, copy whereof is Ex.C-4, which also shows that the deductions on account of T.D.S. have been wrongly made by the opposite parties. Opposite parties cannot make the complainant suffer due to their own fault. Refusal of the opposite parties to pay full amount to the complainant on maturity of Debt Certificates in dispute, amount to deficiency in service. Consequently, this Forum is constrained to hold that the complainant is entitled to full maturity amount i.e. Rs.2,00,000/- on account of Debt Certificates Ex.C-2 & Ex.C-3. However, the complainant has not approached the opposite parties immediately on maturity of the Debt certificate Ex.C-2 rather the complainant has approached for payment only on 18.11.2014 i.e. at the time of maturity of Debt Certificate Ex.C-3. As such the complainant is entitled to future interest w.e.f. 18.11.2014 only. There is no dispute that the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of Debt
C.C.No. 149 of 2014 //8//
certificates referred to above is due and payable and as such we hold that the complainant is entitled to Rs.2,00,000/- alongwith interest @6% per annum w.e.f. 18.11.2014 until full and final payment and the complaint succeeds accordingly. Compliance of this order be made within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt its copy. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost immediately and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
(Bhupinder Kaur) (Vinod Bala) (S.S.Panesar)
Member Member President
Announced in Open Forum.
Dated:17.03.2015.
