BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No.685-13

Date of Institution:08-10-2013

Date of Decision: 23.04.2015

Sukhdev Raj Devgan son of Late Sh.Gian Chand, resident of House no. 288, Block-D, Ranjit Avenue, Tehsil and District Amritsar.

Complainant

Versus

Oriental Bank of Commerce having its local branch office at Hamidpura, G.T.Road, Chheharatta, Tehsil & District Amritsar through its Branch Manager.

Opposite Party

Complaint under section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Present: For the Complainant: In person.

              For the Opposite Party: Sh.A.K.Sharma, Advocate

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member 

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by Sh.Sukhdev Raj Devgan under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that on 2.6.2007, he opened a joint Fixed Deposit  Account bearing No.01953471001320 amounting to Rs.12 lacs and another FD on 16.7.2007 bearing account No.01953471005298 amounting to Rs.3 lacs with Opposite Party. Both the deposits were renewed on 6.9.2008, 15.9.2009 and 18.5.2011. Complainant alleges that a joint Saving Bank account No.01952010016210 is also being maintained by the complainant alongwith his wife Smt.Usha Devgan with Opposite Party Bank. On maturity, the Opposite Party credited the saving bank account No.01952010016210 of the complainant with an amount of Rs.18,78,406/- and Rs.4,70,243/- only vide entries dated 29.11.2012. The complainant was surprised to note that huge amount of the complainant was not credited to his account by the Opposite Party and he approached the Opposite Party and enquired the matter. The Opposite Party told the complainant that the remaining amount has been deducted as TDS, the detail of which is given in paras No.3 & 4 of the complaint. The Opposite Party has wrongly and illegally deducted TDS from the hard earned amount of the complainant. The complainant approached the Opposite Party personally and through correspondence so many times and requested them to refund the amount deducted in access of the TDS from the matured amount at the time of its maturity, but all in vain. The Opposite Party has even not deposited the TDS with the Income Tax department under the proper head. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.67185/- and Rs.9681/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum. Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the amount of interest has correctly been credited to the alleged FDR accounts and TDS has also been duly deducted properly and as per provisions of law and accordingly deposited with Central Government ( Income Tax Department). Based upon the said deduction, the complainant has already been issued TDS certificates for the amount of TDS so deducted and the complainant is at liberty to get refund of the said amount from the Income Tax Department by filing proper returns. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1, affidavit of Smt.Usha Devgan Ex.C2 alongwith documents Ex.C3 to Ex.C31 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
4. Opposite Party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Sanjay Thakur, Chief Manager Ex.OP1 alongwith documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP7 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party.
5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the complainant and ld.counsel for the Opposite Party and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for the Opposite Party.
6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that the complainant opened a joint Fixed Deposit  Account on 2.6.2007  bearing account No.01953471001320 amounting to Rs.12 lacs and another FDR on 16.7.2007 bearing account No.01953471005298 of Rs.3 lacs with Opposite Party Ex.C3 and Ex.C4 respectively. Both the deposits were renewed on 6.9.2008, 15.9.2009 and 18.5.2011. Complainant alleges that a joint Saving Bank account No.01952010016210 is also being maintained by the complainant alongwith his wife Smt.Usha Devgan with Opposite Party Bank Ex.C5. Complainant further alleges that on maturity of the aforesaid FDRs, the Opposite Party credited Rs.18,78,406/- and Rs.4,70,243/- only in the joint saving bank account of the complainant vide entries dated 29.11.2012 as shown in the statement of account Ex.C5. The complainant approached the Opposite Party and enquired the matter. The Opposite Party told the complainant that the remaining amount has been deducted as TDS. The total maturity value of first FDR of Rs.12 lacs, as on 29.11.2012 was supposed to be Rs.19,45,591/- and of FDR of Rs.3 lacs, was supposed to be Rs.4.79,924/- after deducting the TDS as per Form-16A provided by the Opposite Party to the complainant on 11.4.2013, copies of which are Ex.C6 to Ex.C29, whereas the amount paid by the Opposite Party to the complainant at the time of maturity is Rs.18,78,406/- and Rs.4,70,243/- respectively, thereby the Opposite Party paid Rs.67,185/- and Rs.9, 681/- (Total Rs.76,866/-) less to the complainant at the time of maturity of the aforesaid two FDRs.   The complainant approached the Opposite Party personally and even through correspondence for the refund of the amount deducted in access TDS from the maturity amount of the aforesaid FDRs at the time of its maturity, but the Opposite Party did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant.  The complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
7. Whereas the case of the opposite party is that the amount of interest on the aforesaid two FDRs has been correctly credited to the alleged FDR accounts and TDS has also been duly deducted as per provisions of law and deposited with Central Government ( Income Tax Department). The complainant has already been issued TDS certificates for the amount of TDS so deducted and the complainant is at liberty to get refund of the said amount from the Income Tax Department by filing proper returns. The Opposite Party Bank denied any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party vehemently denied that any deficit/less amount of interest has been credited to the account of the complainant, rather the interest has been correctly paid to the complainant as per the terms and conditions and rules of the Opposite Party Bank. The correct facts have rightly been incorporated in the statement of account of the complainant. Ld.counsel for the Opposite Party submitted that the amount of TDS deducted in excess, if any, is liable to be refunded by the Income Tax Department. However, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party towards the complainant.
8. From the entire above discussion we have come to the conclusion that the dispute between the parties relates to account. The complainant has alleged that the opposite party has deducted more amount of TDS from the FDRs bearing No. 01953471001320 and No. 01953471005298. The complainant alleges that the opposite party has deducted Rs.67,185/- and Rs. 9681/-  more TDS amount than calculated as per norms. In this regard the complainant himself has given details of entitled interest and TDS deducted from the aforesaid FDR account of the complainant.  But these details are not authenticated by any Chartered Accountant or expert in accounts, particularly relating to TDS affairs. He has not produced any details duly authenticated by the CA or expert in accounts nor the complainant examined any CA or expert in accounts to prove that the opposite party has deducted more amount of TDS than actually payable by the complainant on the aforesaid FDRs. Whereas the opposite  party has categorically stated that they have correctly credited the interest in the aforesaid FDR accounts of the complainant and deducted TDS as per provisions of law and deposited the amount with Central Govt. i.e. Income-tax Department. Not only this the opposite party has also issued TDS certificate in this regard regarding the entire amount of TDS deducted from the aforesaid FDR accounts of the complainant. When the  complainant would file Income-tax return and  he could adjust the amount, if any excess deducted as TDS from the aforesaid FDR accounts of the complainant in the Income-tax return or he may get the same refunded from the Income-tax Depatment by filing proper returns. Opposite party has vehementally denied that any deficit/less amount of interest has been credited to the account of the complainant rather the interest has been correctly paid to the complainant as per terms and conditions and rules of the opposite party. Moreover, the TDS amount deducted in excess, if any, is liable to be adjusted in the Income-tax return of the complainant and the excess amount, if any, is liable to be refunded by the Income-tax Department . More over the dispute in the present case between the parties is an account dispute and not consumer dispute.  It has been held by the Hon’ble  Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad in case Ashok Leyland Finance Limited Vs. Himanshu S.Thumar 2005(II) CPJ page 92 that account dispute is not consumer dispute. The Hon’ble Gujarat  State Commission has held that the dispute presented by the complainant before the Ld.Forum, essentially relates to the account between the parties. This Commission has time and often held that the dispute which pertains to account between the parties cannot be said  to be a consumer dispute. It is essentially a civil dispute. Hence, the complaint could not have been entertained by the District Forum. Similar are the facts of the present case . As such we hold that the dispute between the parties in the present complaint is essentially relates to the  account between the parties and as such it is not a consumer dispute, rather it is a civil dispute.
9. Consequently we hold that present complaint is not maintainable. Therefore, it is ordered that complaint be returned to the complainant. The complainant shall be at liberty to file the present case before the appropriate authority/court. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
10. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Dated: 23.04.2015                                                               (Bhupinder Singh)                                                                                               President

                                            (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)    (Anoop Sharma)

              Member                               Member