Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/23/2015

Ashwani Kumar Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

28 May 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	23/2015
Date of Institution	:	15.01.2015
Date of Decision	:	28/05/2015

 

                                               

                                                         

Ashwani Kumar Sharma, No.A-103, Rail Vihar, MDC Sector 4, Panchkula (Haryana).

                                      ...  Complainant.

Versus

State Bank of India, SCO No.64 & 65, Sector 30-C, Chandigarh.

…. Opposite Party.

 

BEFORE:  SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

Argued by: Complainant in person.

                        OP exparte.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.      In brief, the case of the complainant is that he is pensioner of the Central Govt. and receives his pension through the OP-Bank.  The OP-Bank used to deduct income tax at source (TDS) from his pension and deposit the same with the Income Tax Department.  It has been averred that in the financial year 2012-13, the OP deducted Rs.29,063/- as TDS from his pension account, which was also reflected in Column No.18 of Form No.16, Annexure C-1 issued by the OP but it deposited Rs.15,933/- with the Income Tax Department and the remaining amount of Rs.13,130/- was retained without any justification.    It has further been averred that the same came to his notice when he received the letter dated 18.08.2014, Annexure C-2 from the Income Tax Department.  Immediately, the complainant took up the matter of the OP and requested it to release the withheld amount in the account of Income Tax Department but to no effect. Ultimately, the complainant got served two notices dated 19.09.2014 and 20.11.2014 through registered post, Annexure C-3 and C-4 but all in vain.    Due to the wrongful retention of the TDS amount by the OP, the Income Tax Department burdened the complainant with additional tax liability of Rs.13, 390/- out of which it recovered Rs.9,910/- by forfeiting his refund claim (as per details available at Page 16 Sr.No.41) and directed him to pay the remaining amount of Rs.3,480/-.  It has further been averred that aggrieved by the aforesaid actions of the Opposite Party, he filed the complaint before this Forum. In the meanwhile, he received a letter dated 12.01.2015, Annexure C-5  from the Income Tax Department, Centralized Processing Center, Bangalore requiring to him to contact his Jurisdictional Assessing Officer at Chandigarh for rectification related  issues. Subsequently, the complainant deposited the additional tax of Rs.3480/- on 28.02.2015 with the Income Tax Department vide receipts Annexure C-6 and C-7.    Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.      Opposite Party was duly served through registered AD notice but despite due service it failed to put in appearance and as a result thereof it was ordered to be proceeded against exparte on 30.03.2015.
3.      We have heard the complainant and have gone through the documents on record.
4.      In his exparte evidence, the complainant has placed reliance upon the documents i.e. Annexures C-1 to C-7 in support of the averments made in the complaint.  He has also placed, on record, his duly sworn affidavit reiterating the averments made in the complaint.  It is proved from Form No.16, Annexure C-1 that the Opposite Party had deducted a sum of Rs.29,063/- as TDS for the financial year 2012-13 from the pension account of the complainant, which was liable to be deposited with the Income Tax Department. It is also evident from the letter dated 18.08.2014, Annexure C-2 issued by the Income Tax Department that the Opposite party deposited a sum of Rs.15,933/-  only towards the TDS and the remaining amount of Rs.13,130/- has not been deposited by it.   Non-deposit of the entire TDS amount after deduction thereof from the account of the complainant with the Income Tax Department itself amounts deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.  Furthermore, the Opposite Party despite due service did not care to contest the case and, as such, it can be concluded without any hesitation that either it admits the claim of the complainant or has nothing to say in the matter.  
5.      In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. The Opposite Party is directed as under ;-
   1. To credit the amount of Rs.13,130/- to the account of the complainant maintained with it.
   2. To pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant towards mental agony and physical harassment.
   3. To pay Rs.5,500/- as costs of litigation.

This order be complied with by the Opposite Party, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount at Sr.No.(i) and (ii) shall carry interest @12% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment besides payment of litigation costs.

6.      Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

28/05/2015

Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

cmg