DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.272/19
- Dr. Sudha Dewan
W/o Dr. Ajay Kumar Dewan
R/o 311, Mavilla, Mayur Vihar,
Phase-I, Delhi-110092
.Complainant
Versus
- State Bank of India
Through Asstt. General Manager
Branch At: M-2, South Extension, Part-II,
New Delhi-110049.
- Md. Saquib Ashraf
(In Individual Capacity)
Asstt. General Manager (SBI)
Presently Posted at: Head Office
State Bank of India
At: Parliament Street, New Delhi11001
- The Chairman
State Bank of India
Corporate Centre, State Bank Bhavan
Madam Road, Mumbai 400021
….Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 25.09.2019
Date of Order : 01.07.2024
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Present: Adv. Sanjev Soni along with Adv. Mandeep Singh for
complainant.
None for OP.
ORDER
Member: Ms. Kiran Kaushal
1. Briefly put, complainant was having a Pension Account bearing no.31550041799 having PAN Number AAKPD 1655L and her husband was also having a Saving Account No.36553334404, PAN Number ACBPD9992P in State Bank of India, hereinafter referred to as OP.
2. It is stated that the complainant had notified OP regarding the factum of having been served upon her by the Income Tax Department with demand-cum-intimation dated 18.12.2018/ notice under Section 143 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, wherein a demand of Rs.60,630/- was raised against the complainant for the Assessment Year 2018-19. It is stated that this was solely because of gross callousness and negligence on part of OP by not correctly preparing and maintaining the records of the pension account of the complainant. It is stated that the TDS towards the pension of the complainant, was wrongly and illegally reflected/credited in the PAN No. Account of the husband of the complainant instead of the PAN No. Account of the complainant.
3. It is stated that the complainant and her husband, who are both senior citizens have been made to suffer due to gross and willful negligence of OP. It is next stated that since April, 2018, the factum of the gross discrepancy was repeatedly brought to the notice of OP but to no avail. The complainant, despite repeated personal visits, reminders and lodging of online complaints on 18.07.2018, 21.07.2018, 03.08.2018, 21.12.2018 and 29.12.2018, the needful was not done.
4. Complainant was constrained to send legal notice dated 10.02.2019 to OP and vide their reply OP admitted the fact that TDC deducted on account of pension payment of the complainant was erroneously deposited against the PAN no. account of her husband and all information for correction in submission of TDS to the concerned department as tax return/submission has been done and the same will be corrected soon and that inconvenience experienced by the complainant is highly regretted.
5. Thereafter, it was learnt by the complainant that her pension account has been correctly linked with her PAN Number but the concerned Ward of Income Tax Department had not withdrawn, its earlier demand notice wherein a demand of Rs. 60,630/- was raised against the complainant for the Assessment Year 2018-2019.
6. Alleging deficiency of service, complainant prays for direction to OP to award, compensation of Rs.60,630/-; to award compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards mental and physical agony and financial harassment; Rs.15,000/- towards the cost of litigation; to award interest @9% p.a on the total amount of Rs.1,00,630/- from the date of remittance of the amount of TDC from the Pension account of the complainant.
7. OP resisted the complaint stating inter alia that complainant’s case is of mismatch of PAN in the pension account of the complainant. The said rectification of PAN has to be carried out by the Corporate Centre, Mumbai, which has to be processed through CPPC, Chandni Chowk, Delhi Branch.
8. It is next stated that the said matter has already been taken up with the concerned branch and all the requisite formalities have been completed and nothing remains to be done at the level of OP. The present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
9. It is thus prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs in the interest of justice.
10. Rejoinder has been filed by the complainant mostly reiterating and reaffirming the averments made in the complaint. It is stated that remitting the amount of TDS to the complainant’s husband account instead of her account has been rectified and Rs.60,630/- has been credited the complainant’s account on April, 2020, hence, the prayer clause (a) of the present complaint has been satisfied and the complainant confines her claim with respect to prayer clause (b) to (e).
11. Evidence by way of affidavit and written arguments have been filed on behalf of complainant. Despite opportunities, OP did not file the evidence and was proceeded exparte vide order dated 21.08.2023. Submissions made on behalf of complainant are heard. Material placed on record is perused.
12. Admittedly, OP had mentioned the PAN Number of complainant’s husband in the CPPC Portal instead of the PAN Number of the complainant. As a result, the TDS amount of Rs.60,630/- which was deducted from the pension account of the complainant was remitted/deposited to the PAN Number Account of the complainant’s husband.
13. Complainant vide mail dated 07.08.2018 informed OP that the OP Bank had deposited her TDC under the PAN account of her husband. Thereafter, she made several complaints followed by reminders to the customer care to rectify the said problem but no action was taken by OP Bank. As a result, the Income Tax Department served a notice dated 18.12.2018 for the Assessment Year of 2018-2019 to the complainant, wherein a demand of Rs.60,630/- was raised.
14. Annexure C-6 annexed with the complaint is a letter dated 24.02.2019 from OP Bank wherein OP has admitted that TDS deducted on account of pension payment had been erroneously deposited in the PAN Number Account of her husband. The said letter also states that OP has corrected in the Pension Payment System with the correct PAN Number of the complainant and have already submitted all the information for correction in submission of TDS to the concerned department as Tax Return which is being done Centrally. It further states that as per the information received from the competent authority, it will be corrected soon.
15. As per the letter dated 07.08.2018, the complainant had informed OP regarding the recording of wrong PAN Number in her account but despite informing the OP the same was not rectified, which led to the complainant receiving notice from the Income Tax Department on 18.12.2018 and caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant. From the facts stated above, it is seen that due to the erroneous mistake of OP, TDS deducted from complainant’s account was credited in account of her husband, however, OP on 24.02.2019 had rectified the said problem of the complainant.
16. Since, OP took all corrective measures to redress the complainant’s grievance and also the fact that the payment of Rs.60,630/- has been admittedly remitted in the account of the complainant, this Commission is of the view that ends of justice would be met, if the complainant is compensated for mental agony and harassment caused due to the inadvertence of OP.
17. In view of the above, OP is directed to pay 20,000/- to the complainant within 03 months from the date of order, failing which OP shall be liable to pay Rs.20,000/- with interest @4% p.a till realization.
Parties be provided copy of the judgment as per rules. File be consigned to the record room. Order be uploaded on the website.
