1.      Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar Sethi, (the petitioner). The counsel for the respondents did not attend the case on 31.03.2021 and 22.07.2021, although last opportunity was given to the respondents on 31.03.2021.

2.      This revision has been filed against the order of State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Delhi dated 15.03.2017 passed in First Appeal No.125 of 2016 (arising out of the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-VI, New Delhi dated 30.11.2015, passed in Consumer Complaint No. 798/2015), whereby District Forum, has allowed the complaint and directed Punjab National Bank (the respondents) to pay Rs. 50,000/- for deficiency in service and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses and the appeal filed by Punjab National Bank has been partly allowed and the order of District Consumer Forum was modified and Punjab National Bank was directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- to the revisionist.

3.      Santosh Kumar Sethi (the revisionist) filed Consumer Complaint No. 798/2015 claiming refund of Rs. 13,880/- with interest w.e.f. 03.08.2007, the amount deposited by him towards Income Tax for assessment year 2007-08 but it was not credited to the account of Income Tax, Rs. 50,000/- for travelling and other expenses, Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony and Rs. 25,000/- as cost of the litigation. It has been stated in the complaint that the complainant was an Income Tax payee and was being regularly assessed at Deoghar, Jharkhand. For the Assessment Year 2007-08, the complainant deposited Rs. 13,880/- on 03.08.2017 as advance tax, on self-assessment basis, at the branch office of Punjab National Bank, at 74, Janpath, New Delhi, vide Credit Challan No.-12. However, this amount was not credited in Income Tax Account by the bank. Due to which, Assessing Authority imposed heavy penalty upon the complainant. On coming to know about this deficiency in service, the complainant wrote letter dated 14.03.2012, then opposite party through reply/certificate dated 19.03.2012 admitted the deposit made by the complainant but took a stand that there was no negligence on their part rather Income Tax Department did not allow to credit that amount. The complainant again through letter dated 23.11.2012 protested that the excuse taken by the Bank for not depositing the amount in the account of Income Tax was incorrect but no reply was given. The complainant made reminders dated 19.03.2013, 22.05.2013 and 28.05.2013. Then an Email reply dated 13.07.2013 was given that correction in Challan could be sought by the assesse, giving an understanding that there was some mistake in Challan. The complainant approached Assessing Officer and Income Tax Commissioner and requested them for alleged correction in the Challan as advised by the Bank but Income Tax officers clearly denied deposit of any such amount in OLTAS. The complainant received a demand notice from Income Tax department on 29.01.2014. The complainant sought for RTI reply on 04.04.2014, then in the Reply dated 25.04.2014, the Bank again took stand that the amount was deposited in Income Tax account by the Bank but admitted clerical error in Assessment Year in the Challan on its part. Even then neither the amount was returned nor credited to the account of Income Tax.     

4.      The Bank contested the case and filed its written statement, on 24.03.2015 in which, it has stated that the money deposited by the complainant on 03.08.2007 was included in Scroll dated 03.08.2007 at Serial No. 23 CIN No. 00012 and sent to Income Tax Authorities by the Bank on the same day. The money sent by the Bank was still lying with the Income Tax Authorities. Assessing Authority can correct the challan. The complainant has not impleaded Income Tax Department as the opposite party in the complaint as such this issue cannot be decided for non-impleadment of necessary party. The above facts have been explained to the complainant through Email dated 13.07.2013. 

5.      The complainant filed his Rejoinder Affidavit on 25.07.2015, and denied the material allegations contrary to the complaint. The complainant filed various letters written by him to the Bank and reply of the Bank, including Reply under R.T.I. Act dated 25.04.2014 and Letter of the Commissioner Income Tax dated 18.09.2014, informing that the aforesaid amount was not deposited in the account of Income Tax. District Forum by the judgment dated 30.11.2015 found that the Bank has admitted deficiency in service on its part as such the claim petition was allowed and the relief as mentioned above has been granted to the complainant. Punjab National Bank filed First Appeal No. 125 of 2016 from the aforesaid order. The appeal was heard by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi, who by judgment dated 15.03.2017 partly allowed the appeal and modified the compensation granted by District Forum. Hence, this revision petition has been filed.

6.      We have considered the arguments of the petitioner and examined the record. The Bank has admitted that the complainant had deposited Rs. 13,880/- on 03.08.2007, which was included in Scroll dated 03.08.2007 at Serial No. 23, CIN No. 00012 but took the plea that this amount was sent to Income Tax Authorities by the Bank on the same day. The Bank has not filed any document to prove that the amount deposited by the petitioner was deposited in the Account of Income Tax on 03.08.2007. The petitioner has filed the letter of the Commissioner Income Tax dated 18.09.2014, informing that the aforesaid amount was not deposited in the account of Income Tax. In the circumstance, the findings of the Foras below that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Bank do not suffer from any illegality.

7.      The petitioner submitted that due to not depositing the amount of Income Tax by the Bank for the Assessment Year 2007-08, Assessing Authority had imposed heavy penalty upon him. Thereafter, when he approached the Bank, then false and misguiding letters were given that there was mistake in Assessment Year and you get it corrected from Assessing Authority. The petitioner then went to Deoghar and Dhanbad and met to Assessing Authority and Income Tax Commissioner, respectively, for correction in the Assessment Year as advised by the Bank but they had informed that no money was deposited in the Account of Income Tax as alleged. The Bank has not adduced any evidence to prove that the money of the petitioner was deposited by it in the account of Income Tax on 03.08.2007, as alleged. In such circumstances, the petitioner was entitled for refund of Rs. 13,880/- along with interest as deposited by him, the amount of penalty as imposed upon him, expenses for travelling etc, compensation for physical and mental harassment and cost of the litigation. Award of the District Forum was itself on lower side. It has been casually modified by the State Commission, without considering the claim of the petitioner. 

8.      We examined the finding of State Commission, who has modified the award only for the reason that amount of Tax was involved. State Commission did not consider the loss suffered by the petitioner due to mistake committed by the Bank. Approach of State Commission was very casual and liable to be set aside.

O R D ER

          In view of the aforesaid discussions, the revision succeeds and is allowed. The order of State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Delhi dated 15.03.2017, passed in First Appeal No.125 of 2016 is set aside. The order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-VI, New Delhi dated 30.11.2015, passed in Consumer Complaint No. 798/2015 is maintained.