On 27/06/2018 the complainant (Pradip Karmakar) lodged 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 L.A Case Number-80/NH-34/2009-2010 and the amount of acquisition of the land was Rs.16,66,377/- was granted as compensation. The O.P requested the complainant by a letter dated.27/11/2014 to receive the said amount and the letter disclosed that an amount of Rs.1,66,377/- was deducted from the actual compensation of amount and Rs.16,63,771/- was to be paid to the petitioner. At the time of making payment the O.P.No-1 has deducted the tax under Tax Deposit Scheme and according to Law O.P.No-1 is liable to pay the said amount to the Central Government and to issue certificate for tax deducted U/s 203 of Income tax Act,1961. According to rules the said TDS amount was to be deposited within 31/12/2014 and it would be certainly paid within 31/03/2015 to the Direct Tax Department. But the O.P most negligently did not credit the said amount to the said department within 31/03/2015, but it was deposited on 29/03/2017 and for that the said Tax Department is not paying the said amount to the complainant. Though the O.P.No-1 deducted the said amount yet the said amount has not been deposited to the account of Central Government of India within stipulated period for which the complainant did not get the same. Ld. Advocate Biswajit Sinha sent a legal notice on behalf of the complainant to the O.P.No-1 on 20/07/2017. Subsequently, the complainant came to know that the said amount was deposited on 29/03/2017 long after the time by which he should have paid it.

Under the above facts and circumstances the complainant has prayed give a direction upon the O.Ps to pay a sum of Rs.1,66,377/- along with interest @ 10.3% and also 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 & 2 have contested the case by filing W.V denying all the material allegation contending interalia that the complaint is not maintainable in its present form and prayer and that the petition is highly barred by Law of Limitation and that the complainant has no cause of action for the case.

The specific case of the O.Ps is that the complainant is neither a consumer as depicted in Section 2 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 nor the dispute is a “Consumer Dispute” under the said Act. The true fact of the case is that the land of the complainant was acquired vide L.A Case Number 80/NH-34/2009-2010 and the said TDS amount of Rs.1,66,377/-was deposited in the SBI Karnojora Branch through challan number 00013 on 30/11/2014. On perusal of form 26Q in the portal of Income Tax Department it is found that the said TDS amount of Rs.1,66,377/- has already been in corporate in the same year in PAN-AUWPK2344P of Mr. Pradip Karmakar for the financial year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2015-16 in 3^rd Quarter.

Upon this background the O.Ps prayed for dismissal of the case.

P o i n t s f o r d e c i s i o n-

1. Is the complaint maintainable in its present form and prayer in Law?

2. Is the complainant barred by Law of Limitation?

3. Has the complainant any cause of action for the case?

4. Is the complainant entitled to get relief as prayed for?

D e c i s i o n  w i t h  r e a s o n s:-

All the above points are taken up together for consideration as they are related to one another.

In order to prove the case the complainant has examined himself as PW1. He has filed some xerox copies of documents. The O.Ps has examined Mr. Aftab Alam as O.P.W.1. The O.Ps also filed some authenticated documents which have been marked exhibit A, B & C. They also filed a notice for compensation of acquired land.

Perused the complaint, W.V and oral evidence of P.W.1 & O.P.W1 and exhibited documents and the notice and xerox copies of documents filed by the complainant. It appears from the evidence on record that the O.Ps acquired the land of the complainant in L.A Case Number 80/NH-34/2009-10 and compensation of Rs.16,63,772/- has been given after deducting 10% TDS amounting to Rs.1,66,377/- and this fact has been admitted by the O.Ps in their W.V. But the disputes in between the parties is whether the amount of TDS was deposited to the account of Central Government through Income Tax Department along with pan number of the complainant or not. The O.P in their evidence stated that the said amount has been deposited with the S.B.I Karnojora Branch but the complainant disputed that the said amount has not been credited in his account in the Department of Income Tax, Govt. of India. In this connection the question arises as to whether the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum ( Commission) has any jurisdiction to entertain the said matter or whether the complainant is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act,1986 or the dispute is a consumer dispute. It is clear from the complaint as well as evidence of this case that the O.Ps acquired the land of the complainant under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as well as National Highway Act in L.A Case Number 80/NH-34/2009-10 and gave the compensation to the complainant after deduction of the TDS. According to Section 2 (d) and 2 (e) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 the complainant is not a consumer under the O.P and this type of dispute for depositing or non depositing the TDS amount is not the matter of the consumer dispute. At best 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 Consumer Protection Act,1986. 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 (Commission).  That apart the complainant could have taken the recourse to the proper procedure before the Land Acquisition Authority. Therefore, we are of the view that this complaint is not maintainable in its present form in Law and the complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this case here.

Hence,

It is            

O r d e r e d

That this case be and the same is dismissed on contest but without any cost.

Let a copy of this order be given to the parties on free of cost.