Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

63/2014

P.Murugesan - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager,M/s.Indian Bank, - Opp.Party(s)

S.Suresh

30 May 2017

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  24.03.2014

                                                                Order pronounced on:  30.05.2017

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,           MEMBER II

 

TUESDAY THE 30^th DAY OF MAY 2017

 

C.C.NO.63/2014

 

 

P.Murugesan,

No.144, Bells Road,

1^st Floor, Triplicane,

Chennai – 600 005.

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

The Branch Manager,

M/s. Indian Bank,

High Court Branch,

Chennai – 600 104.

 

.....Opposite Party

Date of complaint                                 : 01.04.2014

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s.S.Suresh, M.Gopiduari

Counsel for    Opposite Party                   : M/s. RRK Associates

 

         

 

 

 

 

O R D E R

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to refund the sum of Rs.7,168/- and also compensation for mental agony with cost of the Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

           The Complainant is a practicing Chartered Accountant and having 2 savings bank accounts with the Opposite Party.  He is also an income tax assessee.  The Complainant deposited under fixed deposits on 31.03.2013 in the Opposite Party bank. Under section 194-A of  Income Tax Act, 1961 for such deposits only 10% of the Tax can be deducted for the interest earned.  Ignoring the above 10% the Opposite Party has deducted various rates more than the above said ceiling for the assessment year 2013-2014.

          2. The Complainant had seven fixed deposits.  For the said deposits interest earned is at Rs.67,296/- and the statutory deduction at the rate of 10% comes to Rs.6,730/-.  Instead of deducting the said amount of Rs.6,730/- the Opposite Party deducted Rs.13,898/-.  Thus an excess amount of Rs.7,168/- was deducted by the Opposite Party and for the said amount the Complainant is entitled.  The Complainant issued legal notice and even after that they have not refunded the excess amount deducted by them.  Hence the Complainant filed this Complaint to refund the sum of Rs.7,168/- and also compensation for mental agony with cost of the Complaint.

 

 

3. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The Opposite Party admits that the Complainant is the valid customer of the Opposite Party and he is having various fixed deposits with them. The Opposite Party is prompt in feeding the Pan Number of the Complainant in the account and the entire TDS deduction and remittance process has been centralized in their Bank. The Opposite Party submits that the PAN number of the Complainant was available in their system till the Month of January 2013. The Opposite Party undertakes customer reduplication process to avoid entry of same PAN in multiple customer numbers and eliminates multiple customer identification. In this process the Complainant’s PAN Number was eliminated from the Customer Identification number in the month of February 2013 and therefore for those Fixed Deposits of the Complainant for which interest paid in the month of March 2013, TDS was deducted at the rate of 20%.

          4. Due to the removal of PAN number from CIF in the month of February 2013, the system has debited 20% tax in all the deposit accounts for which interest was credited in March 2013. During the process for all the earlier Fixed Deposits held by the Complainant which were closed during the Financial Year 2012-2013 for which 10% tax were deducted were also taken into account and an extra of 10% has been deducted as overhead tax, due to the absence of PAN during the months of Feb. & March 2013. As the Collection of TDS collected from the Complainant has already been remitted to the Income Tax Department, the Opposite Party will not be in a position to reimburse the alleged excess TDS collection. The Complainant is at liberty to get the refund of Excess collection by filing his IT return based on the corrected Form 16A, which has been furnished to him by the Opposite Party on 18.11.2013. Therefore there is no monetary loss to the Complainant as alleged by him in his Complaint. The Opposite Party have also have taken all earnest steps to take corrective action to ensure that the Complainant is not put to any financial loss. Therefore the Opposite Party once again reiterate that they have not committed any negligence/deficiency in service as alleged by the Complainant and prays to dismiss the Complaint.

5. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

6. POINT NO :1

           It is not in dispute that the Complainant is a customer of the Opposite Party bank and he is having two savings bank account with him and he is also an income tax assessee and having PAN number  AAFPM2714A and the Complainant  made seven fixed  deposits on 31.03.2013 with the Opposite Party and he also furnished his pan number for such deposits and Ex.A1 series  interest certificate issued by the Opposite Party for the aforesaid deposits earned total interest of Rs.67,296/- and Ex.A2 series are TDS Certificate issued by the Opposite Party to the Complainant in form 16 A for the four deposits  and more than 10 % interest deducted for the above said deposits.

          7. The contention of the Complainant is that having the Complainant furnished his pan number for the all the seven deposits, the Opposite Party ought to have deducted only 10% TDS from the amount earned and accordingly for the total amount of Rs.67,296/- earned by way of interest for the above deposits, the Opposite Party ought to have deducted permitted statutory  deduction at the rate of 10% interest comes to Rs.6,730/- instead of deducting a sum of Rs.6,730/- the Opposite Party had deducted a sum of Rs.13,898/- is a defect on the part of the Opposite Party and thereby committed deficiency in service and hence the Complainant is entitled for refund of excess deducted sum of Rs.7,168/- from the Opposite Party and the said amount was not refunded to him even after issuance of the Ex.A3 notice.

 8. The Opposite Party would reply that the entire TDS deduction and remittance process has been centralized in their bank and the pan number of the Complainant was available in their system till the month of January 2013 and in order to undertake customer de-duplication process to avoid entry of same pan in multiple customer numbers and  to eliminate  multiple customer identification, in the process the Complainant’s pan number  was eliminated from the customer identification number in the month of February 2013 and therefore for those fixed deposits of the Complainant’s for which interest paid, the TDS was deducted at the rate of 20% and therefore this Opposite Party has not committed any deficiency in service and prays to dismiss the Complaint.

9. The following table shows the seven deposits accounts made by the Complainant on 31.03.2013 and the interest earned for the said deposits and the TDS deducted from the amount earned.

S.No	Deposit Account Number	Transaction Date	Amount Earned	Amount Deducted	Percentage Deducted
1	6025758304	31.03.2013	9,759/-	1,952/-	20%
2	6030399232	31.03.2013	18,385/-	3,678/-	20%
3	6055275989	31.03.2013	12,403/-	2,470/-	19.91%
4	6063005627	31.03.2013	10,778/-	3,899/-	36.17%
5	0956558037	31.03.2013	1,117/-	112/-	10.02%
6	6007663729	31.03.2013	4,951/-	596/-	12.03%
7	6007663989	31.03.2013	9,903/-	1,191/-	12.03%
	Total		67,296/-	13,898/-

The above table shows that the interest earned for the seven deposits is an amount of Rs.67,296/- and the said amount confirmed by the Ex.A1 interest certificates issued by the Opposite Party to the Complainant. The case of the Complainant is that the interest was deducted a sum of Rs.13,898/- for the above earned amount with more than 10% interest and actually the Opposite Party ought to have deducted  only a sum of Rs.6,730/- instead of an excess amount of Rs.7,168/- was deducted by the Opposite Party towards TDS. This calculation was not disputed by the Opposite Party and also admits that for some deposits deducted at the rate of 20%.

          10. According to the  Opposite Party the reason for deducting 20% was occurred due to undertaken customer de-duplication process  to avoid entry of same pan in multiple customer numbers and to eliminate multiple customer identification and in that process the pan  number was eliminated from the customer identification number during February 2013 and therefore 20% TDS was deducted. It is not the case of the Opposite Party that the Complainant is having more than one Customer Information File (CIF).  Only persons are having more than one CIF to avoid de-duplication the above said process has to be adopted. In this case the Complainant is having all the deposits only with the Opposite Party/ bank and therefore lifting of pan number from the deposit accounts of the Complainant is not sustainable. Therefore, the Opposite Party has wrongly removed the pan number from the deposit accounts of the Complainant and hence 20% TDS was deducted for some of the accounts of the Complainant is deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party and hence, it is held that the Opposite Party has committed deficiency in service.

 

 

11. POINT NO:2

          The Opposite Party has deducted an excess sum of Rs.7,168/- by way of TDS and for the said amount the Complainant is entitled for refund from him. Even after issuance of Ex.A3 legal notice the Opposite Party failed to refund the amount to the Complainant caused mental agony to him is accepted and for the same, it  would be appropriate to order a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

          In the result the Complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Party is ordered to refund a sum of Rs. 7,168/-(Rupees seven thousand one hundred and sixty eight only)   collected towards excessive TDS to the Complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony, besides a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses.

The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 30^th day of May 2017.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

 

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 31.03.2013                   Interest Certificates issued by the Opposite Party –

                                                   7 No’s Xerox copy

 

Ex.A2 dated 18.07.2012                   TDS Certificate in form 16A issued by the

                                                    Opposite Party – 4 No’s – Xerox copy

 

Ex.A3 dated 18.10.2013                   Legal Notice – Xerox copy

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY :

 

                                      ……. NIL …..

 

 

 

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT