Haryana

Karnal

CC/77/2018

Sushila Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Yogender Kumar Mehra

29 Aug 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No. 77 of 2018

                                                          Date of instt. 28.04.2018

                                                          Date of Decision 29.08.2019

 

Sushila Devi wife of Shri Narsi Ram resident of House no.405/30 Kurukshetra.

                                                                         …….Complainant

                                        Versus

 

Punjab National Bank Branch at G.T. Road Karnal through its Chief Manager.

 

                                                                        …..Opposite Party.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 

 

Before    Sh. Jaswant Singh……President. 

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

                Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

 

 Present:  Shri Yogender Kumar Mehra Advocate for complainant.

                   Shri Somesh Garg Advocate for opposite party.

                  

                   (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainant deposited an amount of Rs.42,252/-on 28.11.1993 in the shape of FDR, which was renewed from time to time and lastly renewed on 30.08.2013 for a period of 47 months upto 30.07.2017. The maturity amount of the said FDR was Rs.1,89,750/-. The complainant got encashed the said FDR on 24.07.2017 and she received the amount of Rs.1,72,085/- and then the complainant came to know that the OPs had deducted an amount of Rs.12,894/- as TDS from the said FDR for the year 2013-2014 to 2017-18. Complainant approached the OP and requested to OP to refund her amount of Rs.12,894/- which were wrongly deducted from the FDR amount of the complainant. The OP did not bother the request of the complainant. The OP did not deposit the said amount in the Income Tax Department and thus there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who appeared and filed written version raising preliminary objections with regard to jurisdiction; locus standi; complainant is estopped to file and maintain the present complaint due to her own act and conduct and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that as per pleadings of the complaint that the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.42,252/- on 28.11.1993 in the shape of FDR, which was renewed from time to time and lastly renewed on 30.08.2013 for a period of 47 months upto 30.07.2017 and that the complainant got cashed the said FDR on 24.07.2017 and then the complainant came to know that the OP had deducted an amount of Rs.12,894/- as TDs from the said FDR for the year 2013-2014 to 2017-2018. It is further pleaded by the complainant that the OP did not deposit the TDs in her account and as a result, she could not get refund of it from income tax department. Whereas true facts of the case are that the complainant did not deposit 15H/15G forms intentionally in her abovesaid FDR Account with OP nor deposited her PAN number with OP upto 12.05.2017 (as per version of the complainant) inspite of the facts that she had knowledge that the OP would deduct TDS on the interest amount of Rs.10,000/- or above as per mandatory provision of Income Tax Act. As per section 192, 193, 194, 194-A of the Income Tax Act, it is responsibility of person/department/banks etc. to deduct the TDs on the interest upto Rs.10,000/- or above in a year and deposit it to the Income Tax Department since long back i.e. 10 years or more. So, as per the act Ibid and procedure of the bank, the OP deduct the TDs on the interest income of the depositor on the quarterly basis and deposited it with income tax department whether the said depositor had given his/her/it PAN number or not and accordingly in the case of complainant, the OP did so and deposited the TDs with Income Tax Department without any PAN number of the complainant and due to this reason, TDS of the complainant deposited by the OP in the income tax department is now shown/reflected in her AS26 statement with Income Tax Department and this is due to reason for intentionally not submitted her PAN Number with OP. Now, if the complainant or anybody else wants to amend the said quarterly return of TDs filed by OP with Income Tax Department, then she or that person has to bear the expenses borne by the OP in this regard and accordingly, the OP, vide its letter dated 28.07.2017 inform to the complainant that she had to borne the expenses of about Rs.500/- to 550 for each quarter for amendment of every quarterly return filed by the OP with Income Tax Department. Moreover, the complainant did not whispered about the TDs deducted on the interest amount by the OP for the period/quarter April, 2017 to June 2017 and for the month of July, 2017, since the amount of TDs become Rs.10,429/- for the period from September, 2013 to March 2017. So there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C25 and closed the evidence on 22.04.2019.

4.             On the other hand, OP tendered into evidence affidavit of N.K. Relhan Ex.OPW1/A and document Ex.OP1 and closed the evidence on 9.8.2019.

5.             We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

6.             Admittedly, the complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.42,252/- on 28.11.1993 in the shape of FDR which was renewed time to time and lastly renewed on 30.08.2013 for the period of 47 months upto 30.07.2017. The complainant got encashed the said FDR on 24.07.2017. It is also admitted that amount of Rs.12,894/- as TDs from the said FDR for the year 2013 -2014 to 2017-2018 had deducted by the OP. As per the version of the OP, complainant neither deposited the 15H/15G from in her FDR account nor deposited her PAN number with the OP upto 12.05.2017. The learned counsel for the OP argued that as per section 192,193,194 and 194A of the Income Tax Act, it is the responsibility of the person/department/bank etc. to deduct the TDs on the interest income upto Rs.10,000/- or above in a year and deposit it in the Income Tax Department. So, as per the Act Ibid and procedure of the bank, the OP bank deduct the TDs on the interest income of the complainant on the quarterly basis and deposited it with the income tax department. Learned counsel for the OP further argued that if the complainant or anybody else wants to amend the said quarterly return of the TDS filed by the OP party with the income tax department then she had to bear the expenses borne by OP. The OP had informed the complainant that she had to borne the expenses of about Rs.500/- to 550/- for each quarter for amendment of every quarterly return filed by the OP with the income tax department.

7.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant argued that complainant had already given her PAN number to the OP and also deposit the 15H/15G form with the OP. He further argued that OP did not intimate regarding deduction of the TDs on the said FDR amount.  OP has sent joint TDs of the all account holders who were fall under the provision of Income Tax Act. No separate return amount of the complainant was sent to the OP to the income tax department. Complainant is a old aged lady and illiterate person and OP is harassing the complainant without any reason and the amount has been wrongly deducted from the FDR account of the complainant. Learned counsel of the complainant further argued that the complainant is ready to deposit the PAN card and other documents as required by OP. If the OP bear the expenses for amendment of the return, because there is no fault on the part of the complainant and OP cannot blame upon the complainant on his own wrongs.

8.             As per the version of the OP, a letter dated 28.07.2017 was written to the complainant by the OP with regard to borne the expenses of about Rs.500/- to 550/- for each quarter of every quarterly returns filed by the OP with the income tax department. There is no such copy of that letter placed on the file to prove the version of the OP. Meaning thereby OP did not inform the complainant for amending the quarterly return. Thus, we are of the view that the act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service.

9.             Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we dispose of the complainant with the direction to the OP to amend the every quarterly return of the complainant filed in the income tax department by the OP, so that complainant be able to get refund the TDs amount deposited by OP with income tax department as per law. The order complied with accordingly. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:29.8.2019

                                                                   President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.  

 

(Vineet Kaushik)          (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

              Member                                 Membe