DATE OF FILING: 08.04.2013
DATE OF DISPOSAL: 23.02.2016
Dr. N. Tuna Sahu, Member:
Deficiency in banking service against the Opposite Parties (for short O.Ps) is the grievance of the complainant in this consumer dispute.
2. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that the complainant is an advocate and a client of State Bank of India, ADB Khodasingi Branch opened one STDR bearing No.30798546247 on dt.19.6.2009 for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- for a period of 3 years with the O.P.No.1 as such the complainant is a consumer under this Act. The O.P.No.1 is the Branch Manager of SBI, ADB Khodasingi Branch and the Opp. Party No.2 is the local Head office of SBI having their office at Bhubaneswar. During the subsistence of the STDR the O.P.No.1 had deducted a sum of Rs.2904/- as TDS for the year 2009-2010 and a sum of Rs.7,844/- as TDS for the year 2010-2011 from the SB Account No.10443011210 and issued Form 16 A to the complainant, though the complainant has given his PAN No. AHDPP 9258J and 15H to the O.P.No.1 during the time of opening the STDR and without informing the complainant the O. Ps were deducted the TDS amount of the complainant and made the payments to the Income Tax Authority. After getting the Form 15 A from the O.P.No.1 the complainant though objected the same, the TDS amount of Rs.2904/- for the year 2009-2010 and Rs.7844/- for the year 2010-2011 was arbitrarily deducted from the account of the complainant even though his PAN NUMBER was very much available with them and he is an Income Tax Assessee having valid PAN account. The complainant issued a legal notice to the Opposite Parties and directed them to get refund of the TDS amount of Rs.2904/- and Rs.7844/- which was wrongly deducted from his account though the opposite parties are received the notice but did not reply, neither the amount was reversed nor given any reply to the notice of the complainant and remained silent. The complainant being the holder of valid PAN number of Income Tax Department is entitled to get the benefit of TDS of the STDR. The complainant issued a registered letter to the Opposite parties but the Opp. Parties though received the notice but failed to give any reply and kept silent over the matter. The Opp. Parties are miserably failed to discharges their services to the complainant and due to deficiencies in services rendered by the O.Ps the complainant has suffered severe mental agony and financial loss of not getting his legitimate TDS claim amount from the Opposite parties. The complainant has assessed a loss to the tune of Rs.10,748/- towards the TDS amount along with the accrued rate of interest from the date of deduction and Rs.6000/- for the damages. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs.10,748/- towards the TDS amount of the STDR No.30798546247 along with the accrued interests from the date of deduction till the payment made, to pay a sum of Rs.6000/- towards the expenses for mental agony and deficiencies of services, litigation expenses etc. in the best interest of justice.
3. Upon notice the Opposite Parties entered its appearance through learned counsel and filed written version resisting claim of the complainant. It is stated the O.P.No.1 is the Branch Manager of the Bank and in his official capacity filing this written version on behalf of both the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. Being the principal office of the Bank, he is responsible and authorized for the day today functioning of the bank and hence, the O.P.No.2 has no direct role in this case and he is not necessary party in this case. All the averments made in the complaint petition are all not true, correct and not to the knowledge of this Opposite Party and the complainant is put to strict proof of such allegations which is not specifically admitted herein. The allegations made in Para 2 and 3 are based on records and the complainant is put to the strict proof of all those allegations. The allegations made in Para 4, 5, 6 and 7 are not all true and correct and denied by this Opposite Party. The complainant submitted his PAN CARD as well as Form 15H, as prescribed under Income Tax Act and Rules only on 3.4.2012. Thus, as per Income Tax Act, TDS was deducted as per the then applicable rate and deposited with the Income Tax Authorities for the preceding financial years and the Form 16A acknowledging the deduction was issued to the complainant. As the deductions were made as per the Government law, this Opposite Party is not responsible for that. Moreover, the date of birth of the complainant as per his PAN CARD is 10.3.1965. So, the age mentioned in the affidavit annexed to the petition is not correct. However, the complainant can directly file the claim before the Income Tax Authorities for refund of the deducted amount as per law. The allegation made in Para 8, 9, 10 and 11 are not all true and correct and denied by this O.P. The Opposite Party has personally explained the aforesaid legal preposition to the complainant and on being requested, the complainant submitted the PAN CARD and form 15H on 3.4.2012 to the Bank. Hence, there is no deficiency in service by this Opposite Party and the O.P. has only complied the statutory provisions of deducting the tax as per law. So the O.Ps are not liable to refund the amount deducted towards TDS and also not liable to pay interest, damages, loss expenses etc. They have acted as per the rules and there is no deficiency in service and they are not liable for the alleged loss or deficiency in service. The case involves complex question of law and facts and this Forum has no jurisdiction to try the same. Hence they prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary cost.
4. On the date of hearing of the consumer dispute, we heard the arguments of both the learned counsels for the complainant as well for the O.Ps and gone through the complain petition, written arguments and documents placed on the record. It is not in dispute that the present complainant is a customer under O.P. No.1 since he is a holder of Savings Bank account bearing SB A/c No.10443011210 and also holder of one STDR bearing No.30798546297 for Rs.5,00,000/-. During the course of argument, the learned counsel for the complainant contended that while the STDR is subsistence, the O.P. No.1 arbitrarily deducted a sum of Rs.2,904/- as TDS for the year 2009-10 and an amount of Rs.7844/- as TDS for the year 2010-11 from this SB A/c No.10443011210 and issued him Form 16A on 03.07.2012. The learned counsel for the complainant also contended that though the complainant submitted his PAN Card bearing No.AHDPP9258J and Form 15H to the O.P.No.1 during the time of opening of the STDR the O.Ps without informing him deducted the TDS amount and made payment to the Income Tax authority. For this act of the O.Ps the complainant sustained a loss of Rs.10748/- towards TDS and interest accrued thereon and Rs.6000/- towards damages, mental agony and legal expenses.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the O.Ps contended that the complainant was having an STDR bearing A/c No.30798546297 but not the number 30798546247 as alleged in the complaint. He further contended that the complainant submitted his PAN Card and Form 15H as prescribed under Income Tax Act and Rules only on 03.04.2012 to the bank. Thus, as per the provisions of Income Tax Act TDS was deducted as per the rate applicable then and deposited with the Income Tax authorities for preceding financial years and the Form 16A acknowledging the deduction was issued to the complainant. As the deductions were made as per the government law, this O.P. is not responsible for that. However, the complainant can directly file the claim before the Income Tax authorities for refund of the deducted amount as per law. So, the O.Ps are not liable to refund the amount deducted towards TDS and also not liable to pay interest, damage, loss, expenses etc and it is therefore, prayed by the O.Ps to dismiss the case with exemplary cost in the interest of justice.
6. We perused the above pleadings of the learned counsels for the complainant as well as for O.Ps and verified the documents placed on the case record. On merit and on perusal of the Form 16A placed on record as Annexure - IX (1) and IX (2) it reveals that the O.P. No.1 during the year 2009-10 an amount of Rs.2,904/- has deducted from the account of complainant towards interest on STDR as TDS for payment of Tax into the Central Government account on 31.3.2010 which was deposited 18.4.2010. Similarly, during the year 2010-11, the O.P. No.1 was also deducted an amount of Rs.7,844/- from the account of complainant towards interest on STDR for payment of Tax into the Central Government account on 31.3.2010 which was deposited 05.04.2011. The O.P. No.1 issued the Form 16A to the complainant on 03.07.2012 mentioning details of the payment of tax deduction and deposited into income tax under central government account. However, the complainant redressed his grievance before the O.P. No.1 & 2 on 17.9.2012 and 14.9.2012 respectively for return of the deducted amount. In the aforesaid fact of the case, the only point to be adjudicated by this Forum whether the O.P No.1 arbitrarily deducted the TDS amount and liable to return the same to the complainant?
7. To adjudicate aforesaid only point of dispute, we would like to observe that the O.P. No.1 as discussed above for the year 2009-10 has deducted the TDS of Rs.2,904/- on 31.3.2010 and was deposited with Income Tax authority on 18.4.2010. Similarly, during the year 2010-11, the O.P. No.1 has deducted on 31.3.2010 an amount of Rs.7,844/- was also deposited on 05.04.2011 with income tax authority. On careful perusal of the documents on record it is found that the complainant submitted his PAN Card number and Form 15H only on 03.04.2012 before the O.P. No.1 i.e. much after deduction and deposit of his TDS amount with income tax authorities. The contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that despite submission of Form 15H and PAN card number prior to deduction of TDS bears no merit since nothing placed on the case record to prove the fact that the complainant had actually submitted the said documents before the O.P. prior to deduction of the TDS. In the aforesaid situation in our view, the complainant could have claimed before the income tax authority for refund of the aforesaid deducted TDS amount during the year 2009-10 and 2010-11 since it was already deducted prior to his complain before O.P.No.1 & 2 for non submission of PAN number and Form 15H. We have also examined the case record and found that the O.P.No.1 after deduction of the said TDS amount has duly informed the complainant on 3.7.2012. Out of the aforesaid facts and circumstance of the case, we observed that the O.P. No.1 not arbitrarily deducted the TDS amount of the complainant rather has acted as per income tax law and the same fact was also duly intimated to the complainant. However, on intimation by the O.P.No.1 about the TDS deduction, the complainant did not take any steps to put his claim before income tax authority to get back his deducted amount as per law. Under this peculiar fact and circumstance of the situation, since the amount has already been deducted and deposited with income tax authorities, we are constrained to state that the complainant should directly claim before the income tax authorities for refund of deducted amount as per law. In view of the discussions held above and under the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstance of the case, we are left with no other options but to direct the complainant to file the claim before income tax authority for refund of the deducted TDS amount.
8. In the result, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant due to devoid of any merit and the complainant is directed to file the claim before income tax authority for refund of the deducted TDS amount as per income tax law. In the present facts and circumstance of the case we are not inclined to award any cost in this consumer dispute. The consumer dispute is disposed of accordingly.
The order is pronounced on this day of 23rd February 2016 under signature and seal of this Forum. The office is directed to supply copies of the order to parties free of cost.
