Jharkhand

Bokaro

CC/16/115

Ashok Kumar Agrawal - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, HDFC Bank Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sudhesh Kumar Singh

14 Nov 2022

ORDER

  District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bokaro

Date of Filing-29-09-2016

Date of final hearing-14-11-2022

 Date of Order-14-11-2022

Case No. 115/2016

Ashok Kumar Agrawal

Proprietor of M/s Vijay Enterprises, R.K. Chatter Jee Lane,

Bye Pass Road, Chas, P.O. & P.S.- Chas, District- Bokaro.

Vs..

    The Branch Manager, HDFC Bank Limited

    Chas Branch, Bye Pass Road, Chas,

    P.O. & P.S.- Chas, District- Bokaro.

                             Present:-

                             Shri Jai Prakash Narayan Pandey, President

                  Smt. Baby Kumari, Member

 

        PER- J.P.N Pandey, President

-Judgement-

1. Complainant has filed this case with prayer to direct the O.P. to pay Rs. 55,000/- as interest amount and to pay Rs. 15,000/- as compensation.
2.  Case of the complainant is that he is maintaining A/c No. 05298970000011 with O.P. Bank to whom Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax instructed to pay the amount due from the complainant for assessment year 2010-11 vide letter dt. 17.04.2013 but from 05.08.2013 to 10.10.2014 there was Rs. 4,47,565/- in the account to which Bank has not remitted to the IT Department hence complainant has paid interest for the said period to the IT Department. Inspite of issuance of legal notice no action was taken hence case has been filed.
3.  As per O.P. case is not maintainable rather complainant is trying to misguide and mislead the Commission by suppression of material facts. There is no cause of action. Account concerned is the current account in the name and style of M/s Vijay Enterprises with credit facility of Rs. 5,00,00/-. Hence it does not come within preview of the Consumer Protection Act.  Case is liable to be dismissed on the ground related to non joinder of Income Tax Department. The current account will never earn any interest on the amount lying in it. Further reply is that notice dt. 17.04.2013 of IT Dept. was received on 22.04.2013 for attachment of Account No. 05291000011869 or any other account held with this O.P. by the complainant with direction to make payment of Rs. 32,18,290/- which was intimated to the complainant to obtaine a stay /revocation order against the said notice. On verification of account no. 05291000011869 it was found that only Rs. 2029.42 was  balance in that very account and there was negative balance in account No. 05298970000011 accordingly a demand draft of Rs. 2029.42 was prepared and was send to IT Dept. and in respect to further transactions after obtaining instructions from the officials of IT Dept. payment has been made in this way there is no deficiency in service by these O.Ps.
4.  Point for consideration is whether complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed or not?
5. On perusal of the papers annexed with the complaint petition it appears that vide letter dt. 17.04.2013 direction for remittance of Rs. 32,18,290/- was given to the O.P. by the IT officials and account statement annexure-2/1 shows that inspite of said direction complainant has made frequent withdrawals and on 10.10.2014 only 61 paise was in balance in his account. Complainant has suppressed the actual date on which communication was made to the bank. As per bank all steps towards payment have been taken after obtaining due instructions from the IT officials. Therefore, we are of the view that there is no deficiency on the part of O.P. accordingly this case is liable to be dismissed.
6. Hence this case is dismissed and both the parties shall bear their own costs.

 

 

(J.P.N. Pandey)

                                                                                President

 

                                                                                               

                                                                              (Baby Kumari)

•