IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA, Dated this the 18th day of July, 2011. Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President). Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) C.C. No. 132/2009 (Filed on 03.10.2009)Between: P.K. Ravi, Karthika, Thyckattusserry P.O., Cherthala. .... Complainant. And: Senior Manager, Central Bank of India, Pathanamthitta Branch. (By Adv. Sasi Philip) .... Opposite party. ORDER Sri. Jacob Stephen (President): The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite party for getting a relief from the Forum. 2. The complainant’s case is that he is an ex-staff of the opposite party and he had been maintaining an account as OID dc No.24 with Central Bank of India, Pathanamthitta Branch. The opposite party debited an amount of ` 3,060 on 27.07.2006 from the complainant’s account in the name of Income Tax without informing the complainant. The complainant sought clarification from the bank regarding the debit. But they have not given any clarification and later his account was closed uni-laterally by the bank. The bank also failed to give him the statement of account inspite of his request. Later the complainant came to know the closure of the said account was through his business partner who had on 02.01.2009 approached the branch with the complainant’s cheque for ` 2,001 dated 01.01.2009. 3. Now the opposite party is not prepared even to give any reply in written or orally in spite of his best efforts from 02.01.2009 in this matter. Due to the above said arbitrary act of the opposite party, the complainant had sustained mental agony and financial loss. Hence this complaint for realisation of ` 50,000 as compensation from the opposite party for their above said deficiency in service and illegal act. 4. The opposite party entered appearance and filed their version with the following main contentions: The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The opposite party admitted that the complainant is an ex-bank staff and he had been removed from service on 21.02.2007 on the basis of the disciplinary action against him and hence the complainant is in inimical terms with the opposite party. A complaint for the same grievance is pending before the Banking Ombudsman, Thiruvananthapuram as complaint No.A/11772/CBI/3. The complainant was maintained an over draft account No.24 with Pathanamthitta Branch of the opposite party under the Bank’s ‘Cent Convenient Scheme’ for staff of the bank. An amount of ` 3,060 was payable by the complainant during the financial year 2004-2005 as the tax on the income of ` 4,49,954. Accordingly, an amount of ` 3,060 was debited from the account of the complainant on 27.07.2006. The payment of income tax in respect of an employee was fulfilled by the employer. It is not an unauthorised recovery and is within the rules and is entitled by the employer and it does not require any prior permission of the employee. 5. The over draft account in the name of the complainant was sanctioned as part of the loan facility availed by the complainant while he was in service. The said account was closed and the same will not be operative after the cessation of the complainant’s service. The complainant is well aware of the said facts. The complainant is not entitled to get any of the reliefs sought for in the complaint. With the above contentions, the opposite party prays for the dismissal of the complaint with their cost, as they have not committed any deficiency in service. 6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following points were raised for consideration: (1) Whether the complaint is maintainable before this Forum? (2) Whether the reliefs sought for in the complaint are allowable? (3) Reliefs and Costs? 7. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral deposition of PW1 and DW1 and Exts.A1 to A4 and B1 and B2. After closure of evidence, both sides were heard also on the basis of the argument notes submitted from both sides. 8. Point No.1: There is no dispute between the parties that the complainant is an account holder of the opposite parties. The allegation raised by the complainant against the opposite party is with regard to the deficiency of service committed by the opposite party in connection with the transactions made by the opposite party in the complainant’s bank account. So the dispute herein alleged by the complainant is well within the scope of Consumer Protection Act. Therefore, we find that this complaint is maintainable before this Forum. 9. Point Nos.2 & 3:- The complainant’s allegation against the opposite party is that the complainant is an ex-staff of the opposite party and he is an account holder of opposite party and the opposite party had made an unauthorised debit of ` 3,060 in his bank account without his knowledge and the opposite party arbitrarily closed his account without his knowledge and permission by saying that the complainant had income tax dues. But according to the complainant, he had no such income tax dues and the opposite party is not entitled to close an account without the permission of the account holder. Because of the above said acts of the opposite party, the complainant had sustained financial loss and mental agony and it is a clear deficiency of service and the opposite party is liable to the complainant for the same. 10. In order to prove the complainant’s case, the complainant adduced oral evidence as PW1 and produced certain documents. The documents produced by the complainant were marked as Exts.A1 to A4. Ext.A1 is the Form – 16 certificate dated 14/06/2006 under Income Tax Act & Rules issued by the opposite party for the period from 01/04/2005 – 31/03/2006 showing the complainant’s income tax as ` 51,728 for the said year. Ext.A2 is the extract of the statement of accounts of the complainant’s bank account with the opposite party from 30.07.2004 to 30.09.2007. Ext.A2(a) is the disputed transaction dated 27.07.2006 in Ext.A2. Ext.A3 is the specimen copy of an application form of the opposite party for opening current account. Ext.A4 is the copy of notice dated 15.03.2007 issued by the Income Tax Officer, Kottayam intimating the complainant that the complainant is allowed a refund of ` 11,680 for the financial year 2005-2006. 11. On the other hand, the contention of the opposite party is that the complainant was an employee of the opposite party till 20.02.2007. Being an employee of the opposite party, the opposite party is entitled to recover the complainant’s income tax from his salary as TDS. During the financial year 2005-2006, an amount of ` 51,728 was deducted as tax and subsequently it was detected that an amount of ` 3,060 was found to be payable in addition to the amount already paid as tax. Accordingly, the said amount of ` 3,060 was deducted from his account on 27.07.2006 and remitted it to the Income Tax Department on 01.08.2006. Being the employer of the complainant, the opposite party has every right to recover the tax liability from the salary. Further, the account maintained by the complainant was sanctioned to the complainant as part of the loan facility availed by him during his service and the said account was closed since the same will not be operative after the termination of his service. Therefore, they argued that the withdrawal of ` 3,060 from his bank account and the closure of the complainant’s account are not illegal and hence they have not committed any deficiency of service as alleged by the complainant. 12. In order to prove the contentions of the opposite party, the opposite party filed proof affidavit and two documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, the opposite party was examined as DW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.B1 and B2. Ext.B1 is the copy of the taxpayers’ counter foil dated 01/08/2006 of the opposite party showing the payment of `10,568. Ext.B2 is the copy of Form-16 Certificate dated 14/06/2006 in respect of the complainant’s income tax payment for the year 2005-2006 kept by the opposite party showing the complainant’s income tax for the said period is ` 54,785. 13. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have perused the entire materials on record. The contention of the opposite party is that the debiting of ` 3,060 from the complainant’s account is for paying the complainant’s income tax dues for the year 2005-2006. But as per Ext.A1 Form-16 certificate and Ext.A4 notice from the Income Tax Department, the complainant had no dues for the said year and the complainant was entitled a substantial amount as refund from Income Tax Department. The opposite party had no case that the Income Tax Department directed the opposite party for remitting ` 3,060 for the complainant’s income tax dues. They have also not produced any evidence to show that such a demand was made by the Income Tax Department. Ext.B1 tax payers counter foil does not discloses, the remittance of ` 10,568 includes the complainant’s dues. The opposite party is entitled to deduct the tax from their employees from the salary only. Here the alleged recovery is made from an account of the complainant which also opened and operated for the purpose of loan availed by the complainant. The opposite party has not adduced any evidence to show that he is legally entitled to recover the tax arrears of an account holder from an account of an assessee. Moreover, the recovery was made on 27.07.2006 when the complainant was in the service of the opposite party. What prevented from the opposite party from recovering the tax arrears from the salary of the complainant while he was in service? It is pertinent to note that Ext.A4 intimation for the refund of income tax issued by the Income Tax Authorities is after accepting the Income Tax Return submitted by the complainant on the basis of Ext.A1 Form-16 certificate. This and the unattested corrections and over writings seen in Ext.B2 Form-16 certificate indicates that Ext.B2 Form-16 certificate produced by the opposite party is not genuine. In the circumstances, we find that the debit of ` 3,060 from the complainant’s account by the opposite party, particularly from an account opened for the loan facility, is beyond the powers and right of the opposite party and hence it is an illegal act and is a clear deficiency in service. 14. With regard to the allegation of arbitrary closure of the complainant’s account by the opposite party is also beyond the power of the opposite party, especially in the absence of any cogent evidence supporting the contention of the opposite party in this regard. But the complainant has failed to prove that he had sustained any loss due to the closure of the account. Therefore, we find no deficiency against the opposite party in this regard. Therefore, this complaint is partly allowable with cost and compensation. 15. In the result, this complaint is allowed in part, thereby the opposite party is directed to return an amount of ` 3,060 (Rupees Three thousand and sixty only) with 10% interest per annum from the date of debiting of the said amount from his account till date along with compensation of ` 2,500 (Rupees Two thousand five hundred only) and cost of ` 500 (Rupees Five hundred only) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to realise the whole amount and interest ordered herein above along with 12% interest per annum from today till the realisation of the whole amount. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 18th day of July, 2011. (Sd/-) Jacob Stephen, (President) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-) Appendix: Witness examined on the side of the complainant: PW1 : P.K. Ravi. Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant: A1 : Copy of Form-16 Certificate dated 14.06.2006 in respect of the complainant’s income tax payment for the year 2005-2006. A2 : Extract of the statement of accounts of the complainant’s bank account with the opposite party from 30.07.2004 to 30.09.2007. A2(a) : The relevant portion of Ext.A2. A3 : Specimen copy of an application form of the opposite party for opening current account. A4 : Copy of notice dated 15.03.2007 issued by the Income Tax Officer, Kottayam. Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: DW1 : G. Sreenivas Reddy. Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party: B1 : Copy of the taxpayers’ counter foil dated 01.08.2006 of the opposite party. B2 : Copy of Form-16 Certificate dated 14.06.2006 in respect of the complainant’s income tax payment for the year 2005-2006. (By Order) Senior Superintendent. Copy to:- (1) P.K. Ravi, Karthika, Thyckattusserry P.O., Cherthala. (2) Senior Manager, Central Bank of India, Pathanamthitta Branch. (3) The Stock File. | 
