IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 25th day of November, 2021
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R. Member,
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 2/2019(filed on 10-01-2019)
Petitioner : Chacko P.C.
Panayolil,
Mother Theresa Road,
Ettumanoor P.O.
Pin-686631.
Vs.
Opposite party : Branch Manager,
Muthoot Finance,
Ettumanoor P.O.
Pin-686631.
(Adv.Vinu Jacob Mathew)
O R D E R
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
The complaint is filed under Section -12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
The brief of the complainant’s case is that the complainant was having cash deposits with the opposite party. The opposite party deducted TDS from the interest on the deposits for the year 2015-16 and TDS traces were provided to the complainant. The complaint got the reimbursement of the TDS amount on filing the income tax returns. The opposite party deducted TDS from the interest on the deposits for the year 2016-17 and the TDS traces were not provided to the complainant even on repeated request. The complainant visited the opposite party’s Head Office at Ernakulam and Regional Office at Kottayam for getting the TDS traces. But the opposite party failed to provide the TDS traces. The complainant had suffered much financial loss, mental agony and sufferings. Hence this complaint.
On admission of the complaint, copy was duly served to the opposite party. The opposite party appeared and filed their version.
As per the version of the opposite party TDS was collected only for the financial year 2015-16. Since the complainant submitted Form15H, TDS was not collected for the year 2016-17. The deducted TDS amount was shown in the accounts on the closure of the deposits. TDS traces for the TDS collected for the year 2015-16 were provided to the complainant.
The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked Ext.A1 Series vide A1(a) to A1(d), Ext.A2 & Ext.A3. The opposite party filed proof affidavit and marked Ext.B1.
On going through the complaint, version of the opposite party and evidence on record, we would like to consider the following points:
- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
- If so what are the reliefs and costs.
For the sake of convenience, we would like to consider point No.1 and 2 together.
On going through the complaint, version of the opposite party and evidence adduced it is clear that the complainant was having seven cash deposits, with the opposite party.
Ext.A1series is the Bond Ledger extract issued by the opposite party. Ext.A2 is the Bond Interest payable and Paid Detail Report of the complainant issued by the opposite party. Ext. A3 is the accrued TDS Recovery Report of the complainant issued by the opposite party.
As per Ext.A1(a) the interest processed on the deposit BD5608 was Rs.1638.00 and TDS collected on 21.10.2016 was Rs.94.00. In Ext.A1(b) interest processed on the deposit BD5605 was Rs.1638.00 and TDS collected on 21.10.2016 was Rs.94.00. In Ext.A1(c) the interest processed on the deposit BD28 was Rs.1724.00 and TDS collected on 21.10.16 was Rs.79.00. In Ext.A1(d) the interest processed on the deposit BD26 was Rs.1724.00 and TDS collected on 21.10.16 was Rs.79.00.
As per Ext. A3 accrued TDS Recovery Report the interest on the deposit in No.BD254B was Rs.10,182.00 and the TDS recovered on 27.06.2016 was Rs.1018.00 and the interest on the deposit in BD255B was Rs.10,182.00 and the TDS recovered on 30.06.2016 was Rs.1018.00. The TDS collected on 27.06.16 was Rs.1018.00. TDS collected on 30.06.16 was Rs.1018.00 and TDS collected on 21.10.16 was Rs.346.00
Ext.B1 filed by the opposite party is the TDS traces for the year 2015-16 which shows that an amount of Rs.2672 was deducted and deposited on 30.04.2016. Ext.B1 clearly shows that the TDS amount of Rs.2672 was deposited with the central government on 30.04.2016. The opposite party’s claim that this TDS amount was shown in the registers on the closure of the deposits cannot be accepted on the basis of Ext.A1 to A3.
This clearly shows that an amount of Rs.1018.00,1018.00, and 346.00 was deducted as TDS from the interest accrued on the 6 deposits on 27.06.2016, 30.06.16 & 21.10.2016 by the opposite party. There is no evidence to show that this TDS amount recovered by the opposite party was deposited to the credit of the central government by the opposite party. The act of the opposite party denied the complainant to claim reimbursement by filing income tax return, if he is otherwise eligible.
The act of the opposite party in deducting the TDS amount and not remitting it to the credit of the Central Government and thereby denying the TDS traces to the complainant is deficiency in service on their part and point No.1 is found in favour of the complainant.
We allow the complaint and pass the following order.
- The opposite party is directed to
- Reimburse an amount of Rs.1018.00 to the complainant with 9% interest from 27.06.2016, till realization.
- To reimburse an amount of Rs.1018.00 to the complainant with 9% interest from 30.06.2016 till realization and
- To reimburse an amount of Rs.346.00 to the complainant with 9% interest from 21.10.2016 till realization.
- The opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and sufferings with cost Rs.1000/-
The order shall be complied with within 30 days from the date of receipt of order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 25th day of November, 2021.
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu R. Member Sd/-
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1-Series-Bond Ledger Extract (4 nos)
A2-Bond interest payable and paid details report for the year 2015-16
A3- Accrued TDS Recovery Report dated 28/07/17
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
B1- TDS traces for the year 2015-16 filed by the opposite party
By Order
Senior Superintendent
