Delhi

New Delhi

CC/798/2014

Santosh K.Sethi - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Punjab National Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

30 Nov 2015

ORDER

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI),

 ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110001.

 

 

Case No.C.C./798/14              Dated:

In the matter of:

Santosh K. Sethi

H-5, National Institute of Immunology

Aruna Asif Ali Road,

New Delhi

        ……..COMPLAINANT

 

VERSUS

 

1.     Punjab National Bank

        74, Janpath, New Delhi,

        Through its Manager

 

2.     Punjab National Bank (Head Office)

        5, Sansad Marg,

        New Delhi

        Through its General Manager

 

 

 

 

 

               .... OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

ORDER   (ORAL)

President: C.K. Chaturvedi

        This complainant is an income tax payee and has deposited advance taxes of Rs. 13,880/- by way of assessments for the year 2007-2008.  The tax was deposited in the branch of OP on 3/8/2007 vide challan filed at Annexure-I with the complaint.  It is alleged that due to negligence on the part of officials of the bank.  The same was not credited in the tax account.  Complainant draw attention of this to OP but the OP persisted with the same reply that tax had been credited.  The complainant was not satisfied and brought it again and again to knowledge of OP, that the facts were otherwise.  The Income Tax Deptt. raised the demand  as the tax was not credited.  The OP was not ready to accept mistake and therefore complaint sought information under RTI.   The information received under RTI is placed at page 25 of file.

        In the reply to RTI bank has admitted that due to clerical mistake in writing wrong assessment year by the clerk of the bank the amount was not credited.  In spite of this OP did not take a steps to compensate for the tax deposited in the wrong assessment year.  It well known that it is different and long process to claim back the same amount from Income Tax Deptt. except by waste of time and efforts.  In the light of the information obtained in the RTI the case of OP falls flat on its head and it is without merit, and defending the same is wasting time of the court.

        Accordingly we hold OP guilty deficiency in rendering services and award net compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for the deficiency and Rs. 10,000/- for litigation expanses.

The order shall be complied within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order; otherwise action can be taken under Section 25 / 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost.

 

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

     President

 

 

                                                                                (RITU GARODIA)               

                                                                                        Member