IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC/186/2016.
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
29.12.16 06.01.17 09.04.19
Complainant: Gita Mukherjee,
W/o Kashinath Mukherjee
Vill and PO-Alugram,
PS-Bharatpur,
Dist-Murshidabad
Pin-742301
-Vs-
Opposite Party: The Branch Manager,
State Bank of India, Alugram Branch,
Vill and PO-Alugram
PS-Bharatpur,
Dist-Murshidabad,
Pin-742301
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : Sri. Subhransu Sinha.
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party :Sri. Sankar Prasad Saha.
Present: Sri Asish Kumar Senapati………………….......President.
Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.
FINAL ORDER
Asish Kumar Senapati, Presiding Member.
This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.
One Gita Mukherjee (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Alugram Branch (here in after referred to as the OP) praying for compensation, alleging deficiency in service.
The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows:-
The Complainant is an account holder of the OP Bank being account No. 31617141602 and 31612419143 she filed income tax return for the assessment year 2012-13. The OP deducted Rs.10,697/- from her account as income tax in spite of submission of 15 H form but did not deposit the same in the account of the income tax department. The OP has deficiency in service. The Complainant prayed for refund of Rs.11,550/- along with interest and Rs.50,l000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- for other charges against the OP.
The OP put his appearance and filed written version on 30.07.18, contending that the amount of Rs.11,550/- had been deducted from account of the Complainant as TDS and thereafter the income tax department had refunded the entire amount to the SB account of the Complainant being A/C No.34506275201 on 12.08.15. The OP has no deficiency in service. The OP prays for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
On the basis of the above versions following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case :
Points for decision
1. Isthe Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?
2. Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
3. Has the OP any deficiency in service, as alleged?
4. Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?
Point no.1
The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the Complainant is a consumer as she hired services of the OP for consideration.
On going through the complaint, written version and other materials on record and on a careful consideration over the submission of both sides, we find that the Complainant is a consumer in terms of section 2 (I )(d) (ii) of the C.P.Act, 1986 as she hired services of the OP for consideration.
Point No.2
The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and the claimed amount is also within pecuniary limit of the District Forum.
On a careful consideration over the materials on record, we find that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and this Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Both the points are thus disposed of.
Point Nos. 3&4
The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the OP has admitted that a sum of Rs.11,550/- was deducted from the account of the Complainant in the financial year 2011-12 but the said amount had not been deposited with the account of the income tax department. It is argued that the income tax department refunded the amount of Rs.11,550/- with the account of the Complainant on 29.07.15 without any interest.
It is contended that the Op has deficiency in service and the deduction of TDS was wrong as the Complainant filed 15 H form. He contends that the Complainant is entitled to get compensation for deficiency in service and mental pain and agony.
Admittedly, the Complainant is a consumer of the OP as the Complainant has Bank account with the OP Bank. Admittedly, the sum of Rs.11,550/- was deducted by the OP as TDS . The Complainant has not filed any document to establish that she filed 15 H form for the financial year 2011-12. It appears from the documents filed by the Complainant that the OP responded to the letters of the Complainant vide letter dated 21.02.15 and 08.05.15 and the document dated 29.07.15 proves that the amount of Rs.11,550/- was paid to the Complainant in her Bank account No.01506275201 vide cheque/draft. It is not denied by the Complainant that she has not received the said amount. The only contention of the Complainant is that the deduction of TDS amounting Rs.11,550/- for the financial year 2011-12 without intimating the Complainant was wrong. The Complainant has failed to establish that she filed 15 H form for the financial year 2011-12 .In the circumstance, we find no wrong in deduction of Rs. 11,550/- as TDS. It is baseless to say that the O.P. has not deposited Rs. 11,550/- in the A/C of the Income Tax Deptt.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the Complainant has failed to establish any deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Therefore, the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this case against the OP.
Reasons for delay
The Case was filed on 29.12.16 and admitted on 06.01.17. This Forum tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act,1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day orders..
In the result, the Consumer case fails.
Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is
Ordered
that the complaint case No. CC/186/2016 be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest against the OP without cost.
Let plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand /by post under proper acknowledgment as per rules, for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:
confonet.nic.in
Dictated & corrected by me.
President
Member President.
