ORDERS 1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite party alleging deficiency in service. 2. The grievance of the Complainant is that the Opposite party being the Officer of the Complainant in the S.B.I. Bank, as erroneously and negligently recovered more than Rs.9,339/- at the time of paying salary and allowances due to him, by deducting income tax on 05.05.2007 and again on 29.01.2008 and later he has given Form no.16 dated 19.06.2008. The Opposite party is statutorily bound to provide him Form no.16 giving all relevant information therein to enable him to file income tax return and the Complainant retired on 28.02.2007. According to the Complainant, the correct income tax payable is Rs.1,64,238/- and according to Form no.16 the income tax deducted is shown as Rs.1,76,299/-. So, the excess income tax recovery is Rs.12,061/- and the Opposite party being a tax deductor has failed to keep proper cumulative record of his income and failed to apply tax slabs in the incremental order to assess the tax and he has failed to exercise professional responsibility as a tax deductor and tax deductor should own up responsibility and pay for his negligence. Therefore, the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service. He has sought for Rs.12,061/- being the excess income tax recover and Rs.19,00,000/- for mental agony and frustration. 3. We have heard the Complainant regarding maintainability of the Complaint. 4. Now the point that arise for our consideration is;- Whether the Complaint is a consumer dispute and Complainant is a consumer? 5. Our finding is in the negative. 6. It is admitted fact that the Complainant is an employee of S.B.I. Bank, Shivapura Branch and the Opposite party is the Branch Manager and the Complainant retired on 28.02.2007 and the Opposite party has deducted income tax on 05.05.2007 and again on 29.01.2008 and on 19.06.2008, the Opposite party has issued Form no.16. It is well known that an employer is bound to deduct income tax at source while disbursing salary to the employee, according to the income tax slabs and it is his legal duty and his omission or failure to follow the Income Tax Act provisions attracts penal action and he is not paid anything for the said statutory duty and according to the Income Tax Act, the employer or the salary disbursing officer shall issue Form no.16 giving the details of the income for the year and the calculation of the income tax. If the income tax payee is aggrieved by the said calculation and recovery of income tax, remedy is provided under the income tax act. Wrong calculation of income tax and excess recovery of income tax, though in some cases due to negligence, but it does not amount to deficiency in service. To become a consumer a person shall pay or promise to pay or partly paid and promise to pay later, consideration for hiring service arising out of a contract. But in the case of recovery of the income tax by an employer or salary disbursing officer, there is no question of payment of any consideration and the employee will not avail any service to attract the definition of hiring of service as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. Therefore, the excess recovery of the income tax by the Opposite party as alleged by the Complainant will not become a consumer dispute cognizable by Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act. Therefore, the complaint will not come under the definition of Consumer and the complaint is not maintainable and in the result, we proceed to pass the following order:- ORDER The complaint is not admitted and hence rejected. The Complainant is directed to take suitable legal action as per law, if so advised. (PRESIDENT) (MEMBER) (MEMBER)
