On 20.02.2019 the complainant has filed the complaint u/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
The case of the complainant, in brief, is that the O.P No.1 acquired some land of the complainant by LA Case No.108/NH34/2009 – 10 and the amount of acquisition of the land was Rs.12,36,772/- in compensation Sl. No.26-S and Rs.2,42,378/- in compensation Sl. No.26 i.e totaling of Rs.14,79,160/-. The said amount was granted as a compensation for acquisition of the land. At the time of making payment the O.P.No.1 have deducted the tax under Tax Deposit Scheme was Rs.1,23,678/- and Rs.24,238/- respectively and according to the law the O.P.No.1 is liable to pay the said amount of tax to the Central Govt. and also liable to issue TDS certificate u/s/203 of the Income Tax Act 1961. That thought the substantial amount was deducted by the O.P.No.1 yet the said amount has not been deposited to the account of Central Govt. of India within the stipulated period for which the complainant did not get the said amount. Even the matter relating to the non deposit of said amount has also not been communicated to the complainant for which she sent a legal notice through her Ld. Advocate Amar Kumar Saha to the O.P.No.1 on 02.12.2017 and 27.03,2018. Subsequently, the O.P.No.1 verbally stated the complainant that they had deposited the TDS amount to the Income Tax Department.
That the O.Ps acquired the said land of the complainant and the O.P.No.1 bound to provide the service by which the complainant would get the TDS amount and due to deliberate negligent act of the O.Ps the complainant has not only suffered financial loss but also has been subjected to mental pain and agony.
The cause of action arose on 02.12.2017 and 27.03.2018 and thereafter continuing day by day.
Under the above facts and circumstances the complainant prayed for a direction upon the O.P to pay sum of Rs.1,23,678/- and Rs.24,238/- under Tax Deposit Scheme and its interest from 01.04.2015 @ 10.3% per annum along with a compensation of Rs.50,000/- for harassment and mental pain and agony and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.
The O.P.Nos. 1 and 2 has contested the case by filing written version denying all the material allegation contending inter alia that the complaint is not maintainable in its present form and prayer at all and that the petition is highly barred by law of limitation and that the complaint does not disclose any specific cause of action.
Specific case of the O.ps is that the complainant is neither a consumer nor the complaint is not a consumer dispute as depicted in Sec.2 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The true fact of the case is that the land of the complainant in Mouja Raniganj, J.L.No.51, P.S. Karandighi has been acquired vide LA Case No.108/NH34/2009 – 10 and she had been declared awardee vide No.26 for land . The compensation amount of Rs.2,42,378/- has been sanctioned in her favour for award No.26 and that she has also been declared awardee vide No.26-S for structure and the compensation amount of Rs.12,36,782/- has been sanctioned in favour for award No.26-S. That TDS@ 10 % of the compensation amount is generally deducted at the time of its payment, if it exceeds Rs.2,00,000/- or more and it was exceeded in the matter of the complainant. The payment of above compensation amount was made after deduction of TDS amount of Rs.24,238/- and Rs.1,23,678/- directly in the SBI S/B. Account No.33568159958 of the complainant and the deducted said TDS amount could not be deposited to Income Tax Dept. due to non submission of Pan Number of the complainant as per office record.
Upon this back ground the O.Ps prayed for dismissal of the case with cost.
Points for determination.
- Is the complaint maintainable in its present form and prayer in law ?
- Is the complaint barred by law of limitation ?
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief as prayer for?
- To what other relief of reliefs is the complainant entitled?
Decision with reasons
All the above points are taken up together for consideration as they are interrelated to each other.
In order to prove the case the complainant has examined herself as P.W.1 and has been cross examined in full. But the O.P did not adduce any evidence in this case.
Perused the complaint, W/V and oral evidence of P.W.1. It appears from the evidence of P.W.1 that the O.P acquired the land of the complainant in LA Case No.108/NH 34/2009 – 10 and the compensation amount of Rs.2,42,378/- and Rs.12,36,782/- were sanctioned in favour of the award No.26 and 26-S for land and structure and 10% of the compensation amount i.e.Rs.24,238/- and Rs.1,23,678/- was deducted as TDS and the total compensation was amounting to Rs.14,79,160/-. This fact was also admitted by the O.P in his W/V. But the dispute in between the parties is whether the amount of TDS was deposited to the account of Central Govt. through Income Tax Dept. along with PAN Number of the complainant or not. The payment of compensation amount was made after deduction of TDS amount stated above directly in the SBI S/B. Account No.33568159958 of the complainant. But the deducted TDS amount could not be deposited to Income Tax Dept. due to non submission of the PAN card of the complainant. In this regard the fact of non depositing PAN card is on oath in chief Vs. oath in cross and which do we believe. No document is forthcoming to show that the PAN card No. was deposited to the O.P at the time of award of compensation in the land acquisition case. That apart it can also be decided as to whether this complainant can be treated as a consumer or the dispute can be treated as consumer dispute or not or whether this complaint is maintainable in this Forum or not?
On perusal of the case record i.e the case of the complainant and the O.P it is found that the O.P acquired the land of the complainant under land acquisition Act 1894 National High Way Act in LA Case No.108/NH 34/2009-10 and gave the compensation to the complainant which were admitted by both the parties. From this fact it can be said that the matter is involved with the transfer of immovable property and the complainant is not the hirer of any service. It is well settled that where the transaction deals with the sale/transfer of immovable property, it cannot be the subject matter of the complaint under the Act. . The complainant is not a consumer under the Act. It is also well settled by the decision reported in [2017 (3) CPR 690 )N.C)] that the matters related to Land Acquisition cannot come under the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum. Therefore, we are of the opinion that this complaint is not maintainable in its form in law.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
That this case be and the same is dismissed on contest but without any cost.
Let the certified copy of this final order be given to the parties on free of cost.
