Kerala

StateCommission

A/15/355

chairman south indian bank - Complainant(s)

Versus

susan alex mathew - Opp.Party(s)

r s mohanan nair

30 Nov 2016

ORDER

 

 

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION  VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO. 355/15

JUDGMENT DATED:30.11.2016

 

 

PRESENT : 

JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q. BARKATHALI                         :  PRESIDENT

SHRI.V.V. JOSE                                                          : MEMBER

 

South Indian Bank Limited,

Regd. Office, Thrissur,

R/by its Chairman.                                                            

: APPELLANTS

The Branch Manager,

South Indian Bank Limited,

Kanjikuzhy, Kottayam.

                                                           

(By Adv: Smt. R. Suja Madhav)

 

            Vs.

 

Susan Alex Mathew,

Mulamoottil House,

Muttar P.O, Alappuzha-689 574.

R/by Power of Attorney Holder-

Saju V. Cherian,                                                                  : RESPONDENT

Madathil Parambil House,

Thittammel, Chengannur.

 

(By Adv: Sri. Kollemcode D.S. Jayachandran)

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

HON.JUSTICE.P.Q.BARKATHALI : PRESIDENT

This is an appeal filed by the opposite parties in CC.111/13 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kottayam challenging the order of the Forum dated, March 2, 2015, directing the appellants to pay to the complainants Rs.73,861/- with interest.

2.      The case of the complainant as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this:-

First opposite party is M/s South Indian Bank Limited, Thrissur and 2^nd opposite party is its Branch at Kanjikuzhi , Kottayam.  Complainant made two fixed deposits with the 2^nd opposite party.  The 1^st fixed deposit was made on March 01, 2009 for Rs.4,00,000/- which matured on June 03, 2012 and the maturity value was Rs.5,51,404/-.  Second fixed deposit was also made on March 01, 2009 for Rs.3,15,000/- which matured on June 30, 2012 and the maturity value was Rs.4,34,231/-.  The opposite party deducted Rs.73,861.82 as TDS towards the interest for the period from 2009-2010 to 2011-2012.  The amount was credited to the NRE account of the complainant.  In the first fixed deposit only Rs.5,00,910.87 and in the 2^nd fixed deposit only Rs.3,94,467.07 were credited to his account.  The opposite parties have not deducted the tax within time and also did not file TDS returns.  Opposite parties did not issue form No.16.A within the stipulated time and file TDS returns so as to reflect the same in form No.26.A.  Therefore complainant did not get the credit for TDS on interest on the above mentioned fixed deposits.  Therefore complainant was not able to get refund of that amount from the income tax department.  Complainant filed the complaint claiming that amount as compensation from the opposite parties.

3.      The first opposite party is M/s South Indian Bank Limited, Thrissur and second opposite party is its Branch office at Kanjikuzhi.  They in their version contended thus before the Forum:

The opposite parties deducted TDS for Rs.73,861.82 for the period from 1.4.2009 to 31.3.2010.  Complainant did not furnish her pan card details.  Therefore opposite parties were unable to file the TDS returns.  Therefore complaint has to be dismissed.

4.      Exts.A1 to A3 were marked by the complainant and Exts.B1 to B5 series were marked on the side of the opposite parties before the Forum.  The Forum found that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and directed them to pay to the complainant Rs.73,861/-  Opposite parties have now come up in appeal challenging the said order of the Forum.

5.      Heard the counsel for both sides.

6.      The following points arise for consideration:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Whether the impugned order of the Forum can be sustained?

 

7.      It is admitted by the opposite parties that they have deducted as TDS of Rs.73,861.82 towards the interest of the two fixed deposits of the complainant.  The specific case of the complainant is that opposite parties did not issue form 16.A and did not file TDS returns in time and that therefore they were unable to get refund of the tax from the income tax department.  No evidence was adduced by the opposite parties to show that they have issued form 16.A of the complainant and also to show that they have filed the TDS returns within time.

8.      The counsel for the appellants argued that complainant did not furnish the pan card details and that therefore they were unable to file the TDS returns.  There is no merit in the above contention.  In Ext.A3 series, TDS certificate issued by the opposite parties the pan card number of the complainant is mentioned.  Therefore there is no merit in the above contention of the opposite parties.  No evidence was adduced by the opposite parties to show that they have filed TDS returns in time and also form 16.A.  Exts.B1 to B5 shows that the lumpsum amount was deducted towards the TDS.  If the opposite parties have remitted the TDS individually complainant would have obtained refund of the same from the Income tax.  It is clear from the above that there is clear deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.  The finding of the Forum on this point is confirmed.  

9.      The Forum has ordered the opposite parties to pay to the complainant Rs.73,861/-.  We find no ground to interfere with the said finding of the Forum.

In the result appeal is dismissed with a cost of Rs.5000/-.

 

 

JUSTICE P.Q. BARKATHALI  :  PRESIDENT

 

 

V.V. JOSE : MEMBER

VL.