FINAL ORDER/JUDGEMENT

Presented by:-

Shri Debasish Bandyopadhyay,  President.

Brief fact of this case:-  This case has been filed U/s. 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the complainant stating that on 22/12/2020 the complainant during search /scrutiny of daily transitions in his bank a/c no. 11055223444account, noticed that a sum of Rs.61,000/- was debited illegally from his said A/C no.11055223444, maintained with the respondent / OP bank, and the narration mentioned therein was on account of TDS, under section 194N of the Income Tax Act and thereafter in the month of July 2021, at the time of filing Income Tax return within due date for the Assessment Year 2021-2022 corresponding to Financial year 2020-2021, the petitioner noticed that the amount debited on 22.12.2020, from his above referred account, was not properly deposited with the Income Tax Department of India and accordingly the deducted Tax amount i.e. Rs.61,000/- only was/is not properly entered/reflected in the credit of TDS of the petitioner s PAN i.e. AECPD5333F,  and it will be clear from perusal of Form no.26AS of PAN: AECPD5333F for the Financial Year 2020-2021 corresponding to the Assessment year 2021-2022 and the said TDS amount of Rs.61,000/- has been debited and collected by the respondent/OP bank from the petitioner s account on 22.12.2020 but the said amount was not deposited by the respondent / OP bank properly within the stipulated time / period to the Income Tax Authority in favour of the petitioner/complainant, as it is / was required / provided, Rule laid down under the Income Tax Act.

It is also pertinent to mention herein and notify before the Ld Forum that due to that particular discrepancy petitioner was / is unable to file Income Tax Return within the due date by claiming the said amount of TDS and by providing actual financial date before the Income Tax Authority and have been facing inconvenience for the act and omissions of the respondent/OP bank and it also that for such spurious activity / defective services the OP is only liable and this activity caused financial loss, mental pain, agony, and harassment to the petitioner as well as defaulter to file Income Tax Return within due date and for kind solicitation with the respondent / OP bank, the petitioner/complaint has personally approached on several times, repeatedly given / served written communications, specifically on 12.07.2021, 06.08.2021, 14.09.2021 and lastly on 28.12.2021 to the OP bank and which is also within the knowledge of OP bank but no written communication have yet received by the petitioner from the respondent bank to solve the spurious service and to fulfill minimum services to customer and though the petitioner subsequently have filed his Income Tax Return but there is no minimum chance to get / claimed credit of said TDS or to get refund the same and this will caused in non-refund of tax claimed by the taxpayer / the petitioner through filing of returns without matching the TDS deducted by the OP bank and such TDS without proper verification is nothing but harassment for bank customers and taxpayers i.e. the petitioner and thus not getting TDS certificate from the OP bank and as such certificate do not match with the 26AS statement of the income tax (I-T) department, and as currently the I-T department relies on TDS certificates issued by banks only if it matches within the information contained in form 26AS on the income tax website.  If there is a mismatch, the taxpayer shall not get a credit or refund of tax that s deducted by the OP bank and claimed by the petitioner.

Though the applicability of section 194N of the income tax act is not well established against the petitioner in spite of that the OP bank arbitrarily applied the said provision of law upon the petitioner and on the other hand, in spite of having specific knowledge, the OP bank deliberately have not issued TDS certificate (Form no.16A) to the petitioner and have been harassing to the petitioner by violation the settle principal of law and the guidelines issued by RBI to all Scheduled Commercial Banks and financial institutions and by the provisions of Income Tax Act, Rules and also by several Notifications issued by RBI, under banking Regulation Act.  To protect interest of the customers and for rendering better customer service the OP bank is duty bound to issue TDS certificate to the petitioner in time, so that the petitioner should not suffer by any inconvenience in filing Income Tax Return timely which is a mandatory provisions and not providing TDS certificate (Form no.16A) to the customers is tantamount to negligence and deficiency of service to the petitioner and the petitioner after failed to settled the dispute on several times, on 07.03.2022 intimated the OP bank by serving Legal Notice through register post by his Ld. Advocate for issuing TDS certificate (Form no.16A) which was subsequently received by the OP bank on 08.03.2022 but the OP bank considerable failed to issue the same within the stipulated time mentioned therein, even the OP bank did not communicated any reply of the said legal notice dated 05.03.2022 and did not respond to the request of the petitioner and moreover then the petitioner through his Ld. Advocate informed the matter in writing to other concerned department for getting relief from this kind of harassment but no such relief has yet received by the petitioner from any department and save and except this petition no other case is pending or rejected or disposed of regarding this particular dispute between the parties herein in any forum or court of law.

Complainant filed the complaint petition praying direction upon the opposite party to refund a sum of Rs. 61,000/- on account of TDS and to pay up to date interest @18% per annum on and from 22/12/2020 and to pay compensation  a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- for deficiency of service to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for mental pain and agony, hardships, inconvenience and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for harassment, suffering to the petitioner and to pay of sum of Rs.50,000/- for litigation cost, monitory loss

Defense Case:-The opposite party contested the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegation as leveled against him.It is stated that when the complainant informed the said matter, the OP immediately took all necessary steps for the same.  The OP informed the said matter to compliance Department at SBI, Local Head Office Kolkata. The Op has been informed by said compliance department that the amount of Rs.61,000/- will be reflected in Form 26 AS in middle of July 2022. The said information given by compliance department has immediately informed to complainant verbally by the OP.  But the complainant has filed the instant case against OP with malafide intension and to take undue advantage from OP. So, the instant case should be dismissed with cost.

Issues/points for consideration

On the basis of the pleading of the parties, the District Commission for the interest of proper and complete adjudication of this case is going to adopt the following points for consideration:-

1. Whether the complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties or not?
2. Whether this Forum/ Commission has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
3. Is there any cause of action for filing this case by the complainant?
4. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
5. Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief which has been prayed by the complainant in this case or not?

Evidence on record

The complainant filed evidence on affidavit which is nothing but replica of complaint petition and supports the averments of the complainant in the complaint petition and denial of the written version of the opposite party.

            The answering opposite party filed evidence on affidavit which transpires the averments of the written version and so it is needless to discuss.

Argument highlighted by the ld. Lawyers of the parties

Complainant and opposite party filed written notes of argument. As per BNA the evidence on affidavit and written notes of argument of both sides are to be taken into consideration for passing final order.

            Argument as advanced by the agents of the complainant and the opposite party heard in full. In course of argument ld. Lawyers of both sides have given emphasis on evidence and document produced by parties.

DECISIONS WITH REASONS

The first three issues/ points of consideration which have been framed on the ground of maintainability and/ or jurisdiction, cause of action and whether complainant is a consumer in the eye of law, are very vital issues and so these three points of consideration  are  clubbed together and taken up for discussion jointly at first.

   Regarding these three points of consideration it is very important to note that the opposite parties even after appearance in this case and after filing written version, have not filed any petition on the ground of nonmaitainability of this case due to the reason best known to them. Under this position this District Commission has passed the order of further hearing of this case. On this background it is also mention worthy that the opposite parties also have not filed any separate petition challenging the maintainability point, jurisdiction point and cause of action issue. The opposite parties in their written version have only pleaded the above noted points. This District Commission after going through the materials of the case record finds that the complainant is a resident of Babuganj, Chinsurah, Hooghly which is lying within the territorial jurisdiction of this District Commission. Moreover, this complaint case has been filed with a claim of below 50 lakhs and this matter is clearly indicating that this District Commission has also pecuniary jurisdiction to try this case. Thus, the point of jurisdiction which has been alleged by the opposite parties cannot be accepted. Moreover, u/s 34 of the Consumer Protection Act, this District Commission has jurisdiction to try this case. The opposite parties also have raised the plea of limitation and in the written version it has been pointed out that this case is barred by limitation. But in this connection it is important to note that the provision of 69 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is very important and according to the provision of Section 69 complaint case can be entertained by the District Commission or State Commission or National Commission even after expiry of 2 years if the complainant satisfies the ld. Commission that he or she has sufficient ground for not filing the case within two years. Moreover in this instant case the cause of action has been continued and thus the above noted plea of the opposite parties which has been pointed out in the written version is also not acceptable. On close examination of the pleadings of the parties it also transpires that there is cause of action for filing this case by the complainant side against the opposite parties. Moreover after going through the provisions of Section 2 (1) (e) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 it appears that this case is maintainable and according to the provision of Section 2 (7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Complainant is a consumer in the eye of law. It is the settled principle of law that failure of the bank authority to comply with the contractual obligation to release claim amount in deficiency in service. This legal principle has been laid down by Hon ble State Commission, Delhi and it is reported in 2022 (2) CPR 13 (Del).

   All these factors are clearly depicting that this case is maintainable and complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties and this District Commission has territorial/ pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try this case and there is also cause of action for filing this case by the complainant against the opposite parties. Thus, the above noted three points of consideration are decided in favour of the complainant.

            The point no. 4 is related with the question as to whether there is any deficiency in the service on the part of the opposite parties or not? The point no. 5 is connected with the question as to whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief in this case or not? These two pints of consideration are interlinked and/ or interconnected with each other and for that reason these two points of consideration are clubbed together and taken up for discussion jointly.

            For the purpose of deciding the fate of these two points of consideration and for the interest of getting answers of the above noted questions, there is necessity of scanning the evidence on affidavit filed by the parties and there is also necessity making scrutiny of the documents filed by the parties of this case.

            On comparative studies of the evidence on affidavit filed by the complainant with the evidence on affidavit filed by the opposite parties and on close compare of the documents filed by both parties it appears that on the following points of this case either there is admission on behalf of the both parties or the parties have not raised any dispute:

1. It is admitted fact that the complainant had an account being no. 11055223444 in the op, bank.
2. It is also admitted fact that the said account was matured.
3. There is no dispute over this issue that the op, bank as per sec. 194N of Income Tax Act deducted TDS over the maturity value of the above noted account.
4. There is no controversy over the issue that the said TDS amount which was deducted from the above noted account is of Rs. 61,000/-.
5. It is admitted fact that the complainant has provided and/ or furnished his PAN no. AECPD5333F.
6. It is also admitted fact that the said TDS amount has not been reflected in form no. 26AS of Income Tax Website.
7. There is no dispute over the issue that the complainant verbally and by submitting letter asked the op, bank for issuing TDS certificate.
8.  There is no controversy over the issue that the op, bank authority has not yet issued the said TDS certificate in favour of the complainant.
9. It is admitted fact that the complainant was unable to file the income tax return within due date as the said TDS certificate has not been issued by the op, bank.
10. It is also admitted fact that the complainant was defaulter in the matter of filing income tax return for the assessment year 2021-2022.
11. There is no dispute over the issue that subsequently the complainant had to file income tax return without showing said amount of Rs. 61,000/-.

Regarding the above noted admitted facts and information there is no necessity of passing any separate observation as it is the settled principle of law that fact admitted need not be proved. This legal principle has been embodied in Section 58 of the Evidence Act.

                   On the background of the above noted admitted facts and circumstances the parties of this case are differing on the point and/ or apple of discord between the parties of this case is that the complainant is alleging that due to the negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the op, bank he has not received the said amount of Rs. 61,000/- and was defaulter in the matter of filing income tax return but on the other hand the op, bank has adopted the plea that they have deducted the said amount of Rs. 61,000/- and paid the same to the income tax authority.

In the matter of arriving at the just and proper decision over the above noted issue this District Commission after going through the materials of this case record finds that the complainant has prayed to the op, bank for issuing TDS certificate but it has not been issued by the bank, authority and no reason has been given in the matter of non-issuing the TDS certificate in favour of the complainant. This matter is clearly indicating and/ or highlighting negligent activities and deficiency of service on the part of the op, bank.

Over this issue the definition of expression “service” in Section 2 (O) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was wide enough to comprehend services of every description and the District Forum has the jurisdiction to entertain and try such compliant. This legal principle laid down by the Hon ble Apex Court and it is reported in 2022(2) CPR 249 (SC). Thus it is crystal clear that the service provided by the opposite party, bank authority is not at all proper and it clearly indicates that there is deficiency in service and so the complainant is entitled to get the relief which has been described in points of consideration nos. 4 and 5 of this case.

In the result it is accordingly

ordered

that the complaint case being no. 57 of 2022 be and the same is allowed on contest but in part.

It is held that the complainant is entitled to get a direction upon the op either to issue TDS certificate in favour of the complainant in respect of deduction of the TDS amount of Rs. 61,000/- or to refund of Rs. 61,000/- to the complainant within 45 days from the date of this judgement. It is also held that the complainant is also entitled to get Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for deficiency of service on the part of op, bank and the complainant is also entitled to get litigation cost of Rs. 5000/- from op, bank.

Opposite party, bank authority is directed to comply the above noted direction within 45 days from the date of this order otherwise complainant is given liberty to execute this order as per law.

            In the event of nonpayment/ non compliance of the above noted direction the opposite party is also directed to pay and/ or deposit Rs. 5000/- in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of D.C.D.R.C., Hooghly which is to be utilized for the purpose of poor litigant public.

Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.

            The Final Order will be available in the following website www.confonet.nic.in.