Order-22.
Date-07/12/2016.
This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
Complainant’s case in short is that he is a non-resident Indian. O.P. is an insurance company in India and carries on business in Kolkata. The complainant has been maintaining a NRE A/c with the NRI Branch of SBI at Jeevan Sudha Building, 42-C, J. L. Nehru Kolkata-700071. The complainant purchased an insurance policy titled SBI Life- Life Long Pension Plan, Plan-1 bearing policy No.07015905608 from the O.P. The complainant paid premium for five years and a total sum of Rs.5 lakh to the O.P. as premium. On completion of five years, the complainant enquired with the O.P. about the surrender value of the insurance policy after five years. On 22/12/2014 the O.P. submitted a written quotation to the complainant regarding the surrender value of the said insurance policy on that date stating that Rs.5,78,551/- was surrender value of the insurance policy of which Rs.5 lakh was on account of premium paid and Rs.78,551/- was on account of interest. O.P. thereafter paid to the complainant a sum of Rs.4,02,456/- on surrender of the insurance policy purportedly deducting Tax at the rate of 30.9 percent on the surrender value of Rs.5,78,551/-, consisting of both the premium amount and interest thereon. The complainant states that all premia amounting to Rs.5 lakh were the income of the complainant in Japan which had been deposited by him in the said NRE A/c in Kolkata and Income Tax thereon had been paid by him to the Authorities in Japan. The complainant states that India has signed an agreement for avoidance of double taxation and prevention of fiscal evasion with Japan and in view of the said agreement no income tax is payable on the premium amount of Rs.5 lakh paid by him to the O.P. since income tax on the said amount has already been paid by him in Japan and therefore the deduction of tax at source on the amount of premium paid by the complainant is illegal and wrong. It is alleged by the complainant that the deduction of income tax at source by the O.P. on the amount paid by the complainant as premium is not in accordance with the provision of Income Tax Act. The complainant has prayed for direction upon the O.P. to pay an amount of Rs.1,54,500/- which has been alleged to have been deducted wrongfully as Tax at source on the amount of Rs.5 lakh along with other relief. Hence this case.
O.P. has contested the case in filing W.V. contending inter alia that the case is devoid of any substance and the O.Ps. have already discharged their contractual obligations under the policy No.07015905608 by paying the surrender value as per the terms and conditions of the policy and there is no cause of action to raise any dispute and file the present complaint before the Hon’ble Forum and the complaint may be dismissed in limini.
It is stated that the policy issued to the complainant is a pension plan and is governed by Section-80ccc of the Income Tax Act,1961. Since the pension policy is issued to NRI in India any surrender proceeds received under such a policy is treated as a taxable income as ‘other income’ arising in India as per Section-195 to be read with Section-80ccc(2) of the Income Tax Act,1961. This O.P. has prayed for dismissal of the case.
Point for Decision
- Whether the case is maintainable in its present form and prayer?
- Whether the O.P. is deficient in rendering services to the complainant?
Decision with Reasons
Both the points as above are taken up together for the sake of brevity and convenience of discussion.
We have travelled over the documents on record namely Xerox copy of SBI Life- Life Long Pension- Plan-I, photocopies of premium receipts, photocopy of policy document, Xerox copy of proposal form and other documents on record.
It appears that the main allegation of the complainant in the instant case is regarding the Tax Deducted at Source by the O.P. from the surrender value paid to him under his pension policy bearing No.07015905608. The issues raised, as we find, pertain to taxation. From the documents on record, it appears that O.P. has received the proposal form bearing No.075284528 dated 22/06/2009 under the Life Long Pension Plan-1 from the complainant and issued policy bearing No.07015905608 with date of commencement 01/07/2009 with yearly mode of payment of premium of Rs.1,00,000/- for a term of eight years. It also appears that the policy was surrendered by the complainant and the surrender value under the policy was Rs.5,28,425/- and after deducting the Income Tax of Rs.1,79,969.325 at source, the balance of Rs.4,02,456/- was directly credited to the complainant’s Bank A/c bearing No.30450426612 held with SBI on 29/01/2015. It appears that the bone of contention in between the parties is whether Rs.1,79,969.32 deducted towards Income Tax at source was in accordance with the provision of the Income Tax Act,1961 or not.
It is not the case of complainant that he has not received any amount as surrender value from the end of the O.P. There is no allegation regarding deficiency of service on that score. The solitary point agitated by the complainant is that the deduction of Income Tax at source as made by the O.P. is illegal and not in accordance with Section-195 of the Income Tax Act,1961. Consumer Fora in the Country is concerned with deficiency of service and not with assessment of Income Tax of an individual be he a resident Indian or Non Resident Indian. The nature of dispute in the instant case is regarding Tax Deducted at Source by the O.P. We think that such type of dispute does not come within the purview of C. P. Act. Without adverting anything regarding the merit of the fact in issue, we think that the instant controversy does not come within the consideration of Consumer Fora. We think that Income Tax Department is there to take care about it, more so, when it is stated by the O.P. in W.V. that an amount of Rs.1,79,969.32 deducted towards Income Tax at Source was remitted to the Govt. of India. We are constrained to hold that the complainant does not come within the purview of Section-2(1)(d) of the C. P. Act and the complainant does not come within the ambit of Section-2(1)(c) of the C.P. Act,1986.
In result, the case merits no success on the point of maintainability.
Hence,
Ordered
The instant case be and the same is dismissed on contest being not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
No order as to cost.
