KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL 225/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 28.7.2010 PRESENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT C.M.Cheru, :APPELLANT Retired Executive Engineer, Kottayil road, Kunnamkulam- 680503. Vs. 1. Senior MAnager, : RESPONDENTS Kunnamkulam Branch, The South Indian Bank Ltd., P.B.No.6, Municipal Shopping Building, Kunnamkulam. 2. General Manger, The South Indian Bank Ltd., Head Office, P.B.No.28, T.B.Road, Mission Quarters, Thrissur-68001. ( By Adv.S.Williams) JUDGMENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the complainant in CC.1065/05 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur. The complaint stands dismissed. 2. It is the case of the complainant who is the son of the aggrieved ie, mother aged 100 had five fixed deposits in the opposite party Bank and when the complainant went to the bank for renewal of the deposits it was told a sum of Rs.687/- has been already deducted towards TDS. It is submitted that the only income of the mother having is the interest from the deposits. In the amount of interest only below a taxable amount. The mother of the complainant was not liable to pay income tax. Hence the deduction of Rs.687/- towards income tax without intimating the mother of the complainant amounted to deficiency in service. She has sought for compensation of Rs.50,000/- as compensation. 3. The opposite parties have filed version contending that deducting TDS is statutory obligation and that there is direction that persons who are receiving Rs.5000/- as interest is liable for deduction of TDS. The opposite parties have sought for a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation from the complainant. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of Exts. P1 to P5 and R1. 5. The complainant has also relied on Section 88 B of the Income Tax as per which individuals aged 65 or above are entitled to deduction of an amount to 100% of the income tax or an amount of Rs.20000/- whichever is less. 6. The opposite parties relied on the circular issued by the head office of the Bank. We find R1 is only a guideline. We find that the opposite parties ought to have intimated the complainant as to the directions in the guideline from the Head Office before deducting TDS. It is seen from the case records that there was another litigation between the complainant and his mother on the one side and the opposite parties on the other side with respect to the another matter wherein the complaint was allowed ie in OP.763/99 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur. We find that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties/respondents. Hence the opposite parties/respondents are directed to pay a sum of Rs.2500/- as compensation to the complainant and Rs.1000/-as cost. The amounts are to be paid within three months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant would be entitled for interest at 12% from today. Office will forward the LCR along with the copy of this order to the Forum urgently. JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT ps | 
