NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/962/2010

SRI NAGARAJ T.V. - Complainant(s)

Versus

STATE BANK OF INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

21 May 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 962 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 18/01/2010 in Appeal No. 4402/2009 of the State Commission Karnataka)
1. SRI NAGARAJ T.V.No. 27, Ward 8, II Main Road, M.S.R. Layout RamamurthinagarBangalore - 560016Karnataka ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. STATE BANK OF INDIAThe Branch Manager, State Bank of IndiaShivapura - 571429Karnataka ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. GUPTA ,PRESIDING MEMBERHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA ,MEMBER
For the Petitioner :NEMO
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 21 May 2010
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

Despite the notice sent by registered post on 8.3.2010, the petitioner is not present. Petitioner/ complainant was employed with the respondent / opposite party – Bank. From the salary of petitioner the respondent had deducted Rs.1,76,299/- towards income tax at source. Petitioner alleged that the income tax payable by him was Rs.1,64,230/- and excess deduction of Rs.12,061/- was, therefore, made. Claiming to be a consumer, he filed the complaint seeking refund of this amount and compensation against the respondent before the District Forum who rejected it holding that the petitioner is not a consumer under the C.P. Act, 1986. Appeal taken out against Forum’s order by the petitioner has been dismissed by the State Commission in terms of the order under challenge. We are not inclined to take a view different from that taken by fora below of the petitioner being is not a consumer. Dismissed.


......................JK.S. GUPTAPRESIDING MEMBER
......................JR.K. BATTAMEMBER