Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/20/61

Agampreet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Muthoot Finance Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

HS Sachdeva Rep.

26 Aug 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:61 dated 12.02.2020.                                                Date of decision: 26.08.2022.

Agampreet Singh Sachdeva age 16-17 years S/o. Sh. Jaspreet Singh Sachdeva, R/o.112-Partap Colony, Model Gram, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                   ..…Complainant 

•  

 

1. The Branch Manager, Muthoot Finance Ltd., SCO-21, Ist Floor, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana-141001.
2.  The Incharge, Muthoot Finance Ltd., Corporate Office, (North), Muthoot tower, Alaknanda, New Delhi-110019.                                                                                                                          …..Opposite parties 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         Sh. H.S. Sachdeva, authorized representative of                                        the complainant in person.

For OPs                         :         Sh. Anand Sabherwal, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

1.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that on 27.02.2012, SD bond No.63 was purchased by the complainant from the OPs for a sum of Rs.30,000/-. The maturity value of the bond was Rs.62,400/- and date of maturity was 27.02.2018. On 28.02.2018, instead of paying Rs.62,400/-, the OPs gave cheque of Rs.60,937/- only to the complainant. When the complainant asked the OPs about the shortage of Rs.1463/- he was told that a sum of Rs.1057/- was deducted on account of TDS for the financial year 2014-2015 plus interest charged on it for late deposit in Government account. As the complainant had deposited PAN card of his father with the OPs at the time of purchasing the bond, they were not supposed to deduct any TDS as the amount of interest was below Rs.10,000/- for the year 2014-2015. The complainant asked the OPs as to why they deducted Rs.1057/- as TDS for the year 2014-2015 and as to why no amount was deducted for the year 2015, 2016 and 2017, the OPs told him that by mistake the head office did not update the PAN card in the account for the year 2014. Thereafter, the PAN number was updated in the account of the complainant and no amount of TDS was deducted for the year 2015, 2016 and 2017. The complainant was further told that the head office of the OPs did not deposit the TDS of Rs.1057/- in the Government account in the year 2014 with the result that the interest of Rs.406/- was recovered on account of late deposit. The OPs also did not issue form No.16-A to the complainant to get the refund of the TDS in the income tax return for the year 2014-2015. This clearly amount to efficiency of service on the part of the OPs. In the end, it has been requested that the OPs be directed to refund the amount of Rs.1463/- with interest and the OPs be further made to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- on account of compensation and Rs.8,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                It is pertinent to mention that this complaint has been filed by Agampreet Singh who is a minor authorizing his grand-father H.S. Sachdeva as a lawful attorney to appear in this case.   

3.                Upon notice, the OPs appeared and contested the complaint. In the joint written statement filed on behalf of the OPs, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant is a minor and could file a complaint through his legal guardian. The attorney dated 30.01.2020 is a defective document which does not give any right to H.S. Sachdeva to prosecute the complaint. It is further pleaded that earlier the complainant had filed a false and frivolous complaint on the same facts which was dismissed as withdrawn on 08.11.2019 and the factum of dismissal of the previous compliant has not been disclosed while filing the present complaint. On merits, it has been admitted that the complainant purchased Muthoot Doubling Plus Bond through his guardian Jaspreet Singh Sachdeva vide SD bond No.63 for Rs.30,000/- on 27.-08.2012. The bond was for a period of 66 months and the maturity date was 27.02.2018 with redemption value of Rs.62,400/-. On 28.02.2018, the Ops handed over the cheque of Rs.60,937/-  to the complainant. As per clause 2(iv) Financial Covenants and Conditions of the said bond, it was agreed between the parties that income tax at appropriate rates will be deduced at source according to the provisions of law in force at the time of payment unless prescribed documentary evidence like Form 15G/H was submitted. It was further agreed that if the payment towards TDS is not made annually, the TDS amount along with interest @1.25% per month will be deducted from the maturity value. On the maturity date 27.02.2018, an amount of Rs.1057/- along with interest of Rs.406/- on the amount of TDS deposited by the company and the remaining amount of Rs.60,937/-  was received by Jaspreet Singh Sachdeva on 28.02.2018. According to the OPs, the deduction has been made as per terms and conditions of the bond and as per the income tax regulations. Moreover, the complainant has not submitted the form 15G/H along with the PAN number. Hence the TDS was deducted for the year 2014-2015 @ 20% in the absence of PAN details as the total interest exceeded Rs.5000/-. In addition to this, the complainant has not submitted form 15G/15H along with PAN details. The interest of Rs.406/- was deducted being interest on the amount of TDS deposited by the company The TDS was remitted to the Government account as the PAN number was not submitted with the OPs during the financial year 2014-15. The complaint is false and frivolous and has been filed just to harass the OPs. The rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

4.                The complainant filed replication to the written statement filed by OPs reiterating the averments made in the complainant and controverting those made in the written statement.

5.                Along with the complaint, the complainant submitted affidavit along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C4.

6.                The OPs also submitted affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Ishan Kumar, authorized person of the OPs along with documents Ex. R1 to Ex. R4.

7.                We have heard the arguments advanced by the representative of the complainant as well as counsel for the OPs and have gone through the record. 

8.                Primarily, the grievance of the complainant is that the OPs wrongly deducted a sum of Rs.1057/- as TDS for the financial year 2014-15 and also deducted a sum of Rs.406/- as interest on delayed deposit of TDS with the Government. The case of the complainant is that the OPs were not entitled to deduct any TDS even for the year 2014-2015 as PAN number of the father of the complainant was provided to the OPs at the time of allotment of the bond itself. Therefore, the OPs are liable to refund the amount of Rs.1463/- with compensation and litigation expenses as prayed for in the complaint.

9.                On the contrary, the case of the OPs is that the complainant did not submit form No.15G or 15H and unless and until the said form is supplied in time, the OPs were under an obligation to deduct the tax at source. Therefore, the TDS was deducted during the financial year @20% in the absence of PAN details as the amount of interest exceeded Rs.5000/- and the complainant had not submitted form No.15G/15H along with PAN details. The counsel for the OPs has further contended that the interest of Rs.406/- was deducted and remitted to the Government as the PAN number was not supplied during the financial year 2014-15. Thereafter, the complainant submitted form No.15G/15H and the TDS was not deducted any further. According to the counsel for the OPs, the OPs are not at fault.

10.              We have thoughtfully considered the above contentions raised by the authorized representative of the complainant and the counsel for the OPs.

11.              The OPs have placed on record the copy of certificate Ex. R4 vide which the bond in question was allotted to the complainant and Jaspreet Singh Sachdeva vide certificate No.0317/63  bearing distinctive No.2727282 to 2727311. On the second page of Ex. R4, the conditions are mentioned and condition No.2(iv) stipulates that the income tax at appropriate rates will be deducted at source according to the provisions of law in force at the time of payment unless prescribed documentary evidence like from 15G/H is submitted.  The case of the OPs is that the complainant did not provide PAN number nor submitted form 15G/15H with the result that the TDS was deducted for the year 2014-15 and as the complainant submitted form 15G/H for the subsequent years TDS was not deducted. In the copy of the application form attached with the replication filed by the complainant, PAN No.AJOP54652B is mentioned. However, in our considered view, even if the complainant had provided the PAN number in the application form, still as per the terms and conditions of the bonds, he was further supposed to submit form 15G/H to avoid deduction of tax at source. Since for the financial year 2014-15, form No.15G/H was not submitted, the tax of Rs.1057/- was deducted as is evident from the statement Ex. R4 placed on record by the complainant. As per the case of the OPs, since for the subsequent year i.e. 2015-16, the complainant submitted requisite form 15G/H, no tax was deducted at source. The complainant has not furnished any proof that he submitted the form 15G/H for the year 2014-15 also. Therefore, the deduction of tax of Rs.1057/- cannot be said to be illegal on the part of the OPs. However, the OPs deposited the TDS late with the result that a sum of Rs.406/- was required to be paid. If the TDS was deducted, the same should have been deposited immediately within the time provided by law. Since it was not done by the OPs, a sum of Rs.406/- was required to be paid as interest which was subsequently recovered from the complainant. Therefore, in our considered view, the complainant cannot be made to pay the interest amount of Rs.406/- which was due to negligence or delay on the part of the OPs. In the given circumstances, in our considered view, it would be just and appropriate if the OPs are made to refund Rs.406/- with composite costs and compensation of Rs.2,500/-.

12.              During the course of arguments, the counsel for the OPs has vehemently argued that the complaint has been filed through a minor and the same is liable to be dismissed on this ground. We have thoughtfully considered this objection but have found the same to be devoid of any substance. No doubt the complainant was minor when the present complaint was filed but along with the complaint an authorization of Sh. H.S. Sachdeva has been attached. In addition to this, Sh. Jaspreet Singh Sachdeva has also filed an application dated 30.04.2021 seeking permission to pursue the complaint on behalf of his minor son being his natural guardian. Since the Consumer Protection Act is welfare legislation, in our considered view, the complaints cannot be dismissed on technical ground. Since the natural father and guardian of the complainant has sought permission to pursue the complaint, the same is hereby granted as the complaint cannot be ordered to be dismissed on technical grounds.

13.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with direction to the OPs to refund Rs.406/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The OPs are further made to pay composite costs and compensation of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand and Five Hundred only) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

14.              Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:26.08.2022.

Gobind Ram.

Agampreet Singh Sachdeva Vs Muthoot Finance Ltd.                     CC/20/61   

Present:       Sh. H.S. Sachdeva, authorized representative of the complainant in                    person.

                   Sh. Anand Sabherwal, Advocate for OPs.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is partly allowed with direction to the OPs to refund Rs.406/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The OPs are further made to pay composite costs and compensation of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand and Five Hundred only) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:26.08.2022.

Gobind Ram.