Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/44/2023

Sanjay Kumar Batra S/o Chander Parkash Batra - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank Of India - Opp.Party(s)

Complainant inperson

27 Jul 2023

ORDER

           

BEFORE THE PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, YAMUNA NAGAR AT JAGADHRI.

 

                                                         Complaint No. 44 of 2023.

                                                          Date of institution: 13.02.2023.

                                                          Date of decision: 27.07.2023.

 

Sanjay Kumar Batra son of Sh. Chander Parkash Batra, aged 50 years, R/o H.No.6-B, Krishna Colony, Near Sarojini Colony, Yamuna Nagar, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

 

                                                                                      …Complainant.

                                                     Versus.

 

State Bank of India, having its Branch office at Railway Road, Yamuna Nagar Main Bazar, through its Branch Manager.

 

                                                                                      ….Opponent.

 

CORAM:    GULAB SINGH, PRESIDENT.       

                   GEETA PARKASH, LADY MEMBER.

                   JASVINDER SINGH, MEMBER.

         

 

Present:       Complainant in person.

                   Sh. GL Sharma, Adv. for the opponent.

 

ORDER:

 

1.                  This is complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for short “Act”).

2.            Going through the contents of the complaint, supportive documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-19, and the contents of the written statement, briefly, admitted facts of the case are, complainant is having saving account bearing No.55042015283 with the opponent-bank and the opponent-bank on his deposits, for the financial year 2021-22, shown the interest income, in the sum of Rs.2,98,894/-, in Form 26AS, fact is reflected from document Ex.C2.

3.                Complainant alleged, on 15.10.2021, he deposited/booked online amounting to Rs.99,00,000/- as Fixed Deposit (for short “FD”), for the period of one year, fact is reflected from photocopy of FDR Ex.C3. During the validity period of FDR Ex.C3, opponent-bank counted the income from interest, for the financial year 2021-22, on the FDR Account No.00000040512925857 and deducted the tax (TDS), in the sum of Rs.22,956/-, fact is reflected from copy of statement of account Ex.C4, maintained by the opponent-bank.

4.                However, FDR Ex.C3 was pre-mature and was being closed by the complainant, on 15.04.2022, prior to date of maturity i.e. 15.10.2022, fact is not disputed and due to pre-mature of FDR Ex.C3, income by way of interest, accrued on it, in the sum of Rs.1,69,015/- and tax deducted by the opponent-bank, in the sum of Rs.13,201/-, for the financial year 2022-23, fact is again reflected from Form No.16A Ex.C6, issued by the opponent-bank.

5.                In this way, bone of the contention, between the party is a difference of income, by way of interest, accrued on FDR Ex.C3.

6.                Complainant alleged, he requested to the opponent-bank, vide his letter dated 2.9.2022 Ex.C5, to issue the revised Form No.16A, showing the accrual of actual income, by way of interest against FDR Ex.C3, for the financial year 2021-22, in the sum of Rs.1,69,015/-, out of which, tax was deducted in the sum of Rs.13,201/-, equal to Rs.1,55,814, instead of Rs.2,29,557/-, but the opponent-bank despite, the repeated communication from him, failed to issue, the revised certificate. He had to claim, the refund, from the Income Tax Department, on the basis of, Form No.16A, issued by the opponent-bank, for the financial year 2021-22 and non issuance of revise certificate by the opponent-bank, is an act of negligence, deficiency in service, which constrained him, to file the present complaint, before this Commission, against the opponent.

7.              On receipt of notice of the complaint, opponent in its written statement, admitted the factual position stated by the complainant, in his complaint and all correspondence, from the side of the complainant, but it denied the commission of any act of negligence, deficiency in service, on the ground, the opponent-bank already provided the necessary document, to the complainant, including counting of his income by way of interest, on FDR Ex.C3, in the sum of Rs.2,98,894/- and thereafter, income by way of interest, on FDR Ex.C3, for the financial year 2022-23, in the sum of Rs.1,55,814/-, after deducting the tax (TDS), in the sum of Rs.13,201/- and the complainant may submit these documents, for refund of income tax paid, due to pre mature encashment of FDR Ex.C3.

8.            During the course of arguments, complainant, reiterated to the version made into the complaint and he apprised the Commission, about the documents i.e. Ex.C8 to Ex.C19 and also placed on record written arguments, containing Page No.1 to 5, in which, in material respect, the version made into the complaint, has been reiterated to.

9.                   On the another hand, Sh. GL Sharma, Adv. for opponent, in the course of his arguments, reiterated to the version made into the written statement and warranted the attention of this Commission, towards the own document of complainant i.e. order dated 6.2.2023, passed by the Ombudsman of the opponent-bank.  

10.              The Moot question before this Commission is whether, the opponent committed any act of negligence and deficiency in service, making the complainant entitled to the relief as prayed or to what extent?

11.              The FDR Ex.C3 of the complainant, with the opponent-bank, initially, was for the period of one year i.e. 15.10.2021 to 15.10.2022, in the sum of Rs.99,00,000/-. Admittedly, for the financial year 2021-22, his income, by way of interest, on FDR was assessed, in the sum of Rs.2,29,557/-, out of which, the opponent-bank shown the deduction of tax (TDS), in the sum of Rs.22,956/- i.e. his income by way of interest, on FDR Ex.C3, was assessed, in the sum of  Rs.2,06,601/- (Total Income is Rs.2,29,557/- minus total tax deducted Rs.22,956/- = Rs.2,06,601/-), fact is reflected from copy of statement of account Ex.C10, issued by the opponent-bank and Form 26AS Ex.C2, issued by the opponent-bank. Indisputably, FDR Ex.C3 got encashment on 15.4.2022. Consequently, income accrued by way of FDR, during the subsistence of FDR Ex.C3, counting, in the sum of Rs.1,69,015/-, for the financial year 2022-23 and tax (TDS) was deducted in the sum of Rs.13,201/ and in this regard, opponent-bank issued the Form No.16A Ex.C6, but the complainant through his correspondence, addressed to the opponent-bank, requested the issuance of revised Form 16A, for the period of 01.01.2022 to 31.03.2022, which has been declined, by the opponent-bank. Aggrieved, from the action of the opponent, he raised his grievance, before the banking Ombudsman, by vide order dated 6.2.2023 Ex.C19, came to the conclusion, the opponent-bank had not committed any act of negligence, deficiency in service and it closed the case of the complainant. It is judicial noticeable facts, once, a bank, being a corporate body, in discharge, of its official duties, deducts the TDS, from the customer and transmit the same to the Income Tax Department, then, bank cannot refund, the same, to the customer, even, due to change of circumstances. In the case, in hand, due to pre-mature of encashment of FDR Ex.C3, the only duty of the bank, was to issue the necessary certificate, in favour of the complainant, deducting tax (TDS) for the financial year 2021-22 and then, 2022-23 which admittedly, it has done and it, has rightly been observed, by the banking Ombudsman, vide order dated 6.2.2023 Ex.C19, the complainant by supplying document issued by the opponent-bank, with regard to the, deduction of his TDS for financial year 2021-22 and 2022-23, very well, can claim refund, from the Income Tax Department, by furnishing ITR (Income Tax Return), for relevant year and the opponent-bank at no point of time, committed any act of negligence, deficiency in service, making the complainant entitled to as, prayed. Complainant is devoid on merits and is liable to be dismissed.

12.             Hence, due to the reasons stated hereinbefore, the complaint is, dismissed, it being devoid on merits, leaving the parties to bear their own costs of litigation. 

13.               File be consigned to the records.

Dated: 27.07.2023.     

                                                                                   (Gulab Singh)

                                                                        District & Sessions Judge (VRS)

(Geeta Parkash)     (Jasvinder Singh)                              President,

Lady Member.      (Member).                                    DCDRC, YNR.                  
 

 

Typed by:  Aarti.