West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/128/2014

Sri Dipak Kumar Bhattacharya. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Asst. General Manager, S.B.I. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.Badal Das.

27 Jan 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

&

Mrs. Debi Sengupta, Member

 

Complaint Case No.128/2014

                                                       

                                        Sri Dipak Kumar Bhattacharya…………..….……Complainant.

Versus

 

1)The Asstt. General Manager, S.B.I.,

2)   The Manager, S.B.I……….………...........…..Opp. Parties.

 

              For the Complainant: Mr. Badal Das, Advocate.

              For the O.P.               : Mrs.  Sumana Ghosh, Advocate.

 

Decided on: - 27/01/2016

                               

ORDER

                          Bibekananda Pramanik, President–Facts of the case, in brief, is that the complainant is a resident of Mitra Compound under Kotwali P.S. in the district of Paschim Medinipur.  He was a bank employee and he retired from his service on 31/03/2001.  After retirement, complainant started a garment business named and styled as M/s The Collection at Station Road, Midnapore.  He could not run his said business for a long time and therefore he transferred the same by way of sale in the year 2011.  The complainant is a bona fide account holder of the opposite party-State Bank of India, Medinipur Branch having his pension a/c no.11161950468. The amount of pension is the only livelihood of the complainant and his family members.  On 31/08/2014, while the complainant went to the opposite party-Bank to withdraw some amount, then he came to know that on basis of an illegal order of Sales Tax Officer, Medinipur Circle, the opposite party no1 deducted a

Contd………………..P/2

 

 

 

( 2 )

sum of  Rs.44,000/- from the pension account of the complainant in most illegal way.  The complainant collected the statement of account and came to know that a sum of  Rs.44,000/- only has been debited from his pension account  and a sum of Rs.27,000/- only has been endorsed as “Set Hold”.  Complainant then met the opposite party no.1 and asked him about the reason as to why he deducted such amount from his pension account without giving any information to him but the opposite party no.1 did not give any suitable reply to the complainant.  It is stated that the opposite parties have no right to debit the said account from his pension amount without his consent and such act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service.  The complainant requested the opposite parties to adjust his pension account but the opposite parties have refused.  Hence the complaint, praying for directing the opposite parties to adjust the pension account of the complainant with interest and an award of Rs.25,000/- for mental pain and agony and for Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost.   

                        Both the opposite parties have contested this case by filling a joint written objection. Denying and disputing the case of the complainant, it is the specific case of the opposite party-Bank that according to section 60(4), (9), (10) of the Value Added Tax Act, 2003 it is mandatory to the bank to comply with the order of garnishee proceedings without any exception and does not give any discretion to the bank or it’s officer to discriminate on the basis of the nature of the account that is whether it is Saving Account or Current Account or Trust Account or Pension Account etc.  According to Section 97 of the act, no suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings shall lie against any Govt. servant for anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done under this act or the rules made there under. In view of the statutory provisions of the said act, there was no alternative for the Bank but to comply the order/notice of the Sales Tax Authorities and any grievance of the customer that he may have with regard to the debit of the account lies solely against the Sales Tax Authorities and not against the Bank.  As the debit of the customer’s account was under statutory provisions and involuntary there cannot be said to be any deficiency in service on the part of the bank under the Consumer Protection act.  As the customer has admitted in his complaint at para-6 that his account was debited on the advice of the Sales Tax Officer, the complaint is not maintainable due to the non-joinder of the Sales Tax Authority as respondent. Since the complainant has alleged that the order of the Sales Tax Authority is illegal, so it was incumbent upon him to challenge the said order before the appropriate forum or tribunal set up for the purpose under chapter XIII of the said act instead of proceeding against the Bank before the Consumer Forum.  Further, about the allegation of the complainant at Para-8 of his petition of complaint that he was

Contd………………..P/3

 

 

 

( 3 )

not informed by the Bank about the said deduction, it is stated by the Ops. that the said allegation is misconceived since under the said act, it was the duty of the Sales Tax Authorities to inform him about the said Garnishee order issued upon the Bank.  Reference may be made to the Garnishee Notice where the same has also been endorsed to the complainant by the Sales Tax Authority and is also mandated so u/s 60 (3) of the said Act. Opposite parties have denied that they have any deficiency in service and the petition of complaint is therefore liable to be rejected with cost.

Points for decision

1)Is the complaint maintainable in it’s present form and prayer ?

2)Is the complainant a consumer under the provision of C.P. Act ?

3)Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party-Bank ?

4)Is the complainant entitled to the relief, as prayed for ?

                 To prove his case, the complainant has examined himself as PW-1.  On the other hand, opposite parties have examined two witnesses namely one Dipak Dutta as OPW-1 and one Nasim Reza Masoom, Sales tax Officer, Medinipur charge office as OPW-2.  The documents, relied upon by the opposite parties, have been marked as Exhibit-A, B & C respectively.                       

Decision with reasons

      All the above points are taken up together for consideration.  In this case, the complainant’s grievance against the opposite parties is that on basis of an illegal order of Sales Tax Office of Medinipur Circle, opposite party no.1 deducted a sum of Rs.44,000/- only from his pension account being no.11161950468 in most illegal way and without any prior intimation to him and such act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service.  It is also the grievance of the complainant that in spite of request, the opposite parties did not adjust the said amount in his pension account and hence the complaint.  As against this, the case of the opposite parties   in brief is that they deducted the said sum of Rs.44,000/- as per order of the notice for Garnishee under Section 60/60A of the West Bengal of Value Added Tax Act, 2003, issued by the Sales Tax Officer, Medinipur Circle directing the Branch Manager, S.B.I, Medinipur Branch for deduction of the said amount.  Said notice under Section 60/60A of the West Bengal of Value Added Tax Act, 2003 has been marked as Exhibit-A.  From this Exbt.-A, we find that by that notice, the Branch Manager of S.B.I., Medinipur Branch was directed to deposit Rs.71,000/- after deducting the same from  the account no.01190094204 of the complainant lying with the Bank of the opposite parties and  to deposit the said amount in the appropriate Govt. Treasury at Midnapore under the head of account and to produce within a week from the date of  such deposit a receipted copy of the challan before the Sales Tax Officer in proof of payment thereof.  From the written objection

Contd………………..P/4

 

 

( 4 )

as well as from the evidence of OPW-1, we find that the said account no.01190094204 was an old number which was  converted to new A/c no.11161950468 and in compliance of the said notice of the Sales Tax Officer, OPW-1 deducted Rs.40,000/- from that account and SET HOLD Rs.27,000/-.  Now the question arises as to whether the said act of the opposite party no.1 amounts to deficiency in service or not.  On this score, we find that it is the case of the complainant that the said account of the complainant is a pension account which is not attachable under law and the opposite party no.1 illegally deducted the said sum of Rs.44,000/- from his pension account. True it is, that the pension account is not attachable but here in this case we find that the opposite party no.1 deducted the said sum of Rs.44,000/- from the said account of the complainant in compliance with the notice under Section 60/60A of the West Bengal of Value Added Tax Act, 2003. Under the provision of Sections 60/60A of the West Bengal of Value Added Tax Act, 2003, it is mandatory to the Bank to comply with the order of the Garnishee proceeding without any exception. Moreover Section-97 of the said act provides that no suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding shall lie against any Government servant for anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done under this act or the rules made there under.  Here in the present case, we find that opposite party no.1 deducted the said amount from the account of the complainant as per notice under Section 60/60A of the West Bengal of Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and he deducted the said amount  in good faith in compliance of the said order.  In view of that, the present proceeding against the opposite party is at all maintainable against the opposite parties.  Moreover, we find that since the opposite parties deducted the said amount in good faith in compliance with the notice under Section 60/60A of the West Bengal of Value Added Tax Act, 2003, so the said act of the opposite parties in deducting the said sum of Rs.44,000/- from the account of the complainant cannot be said to be an act of deficiency in service.  In the above facts and circumstances, the petition of complainant is liable to be dismissed.

                                                         Hence, it is,

                                                            Ordered,

                                                               that the complaint case no.128/2014  is hereby dismissed on contest but in the circumstances without cost.

                 Dictated & Corrected by me

                                    Sd/-                                           Sd/-                                         Sd/-

                               President                                    Member                                  President

                                                                                                                             District Forum

                                                                                                                         Paschim Medinipur