Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/476/2014

M/s.Pack O Print , Mr. K.P.Bala Krishnan - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

S.Veeraraghavan

07 Sep 2016

ORDER

     Date of Filing :   10.11.2014

                                                                        Date of Order :   07.09.2016.

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI(SOUTH)

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

 

PRESENT: THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM M.A.M.L.,                     : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I

                 DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

 

C.C.NO.476/2014

WEDNESDAY THIS  7^TH  DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016

 

M/s. Pack “O” Print,

Rep. by one of its Partner,

Mr.K.P. Bala Krishnan,

Having office at No.710,

Anna Salai,

Nandanam,

Chennai.                                                              ..Complainant

 

                                         ..Vs..

 

The Manager,

State Bank of India,

Saidapet Branch,

Chennai 600 035.                                               ..Opposite party  

 

 

For the Complainant                    :    M/s. S. Veeraraghavan & another        

For the opposite party                 :    Exparte.

 

ORDER

 

THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM PRESIDENT

Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  The  complaint is filed seeking direction against the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1,77,388/- and also to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and to pay cost of the complaint.

2.     Even after receipt of the notice from this forum in this proceeding, the opposite party did not appear before this Forum and did not file any written version.  Hence the opposite party was set exparte on 19.3.2015 

3.     Perused the complaint, and the documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A7  filed by the complainant and proof affidavit and the entire C.C. records and considered the arguments of the complainant’ counsel.

4.     It is the bound and duty of the complainant to prove that the complaint filed by the complainant is within the purview of CP Act and its maintainability before this forum.

5.     The complainant is the partnership company doing business of selling all kinds of printed equipments, and also a income tax assesse.  This complaint is filed by the said company represented by its partner, stating that for the financial year 2010-2011, complainant company has deposited in the opposite party bank,  a sum of Rs.1,69,603/- through the cheque dated 05.01.2012 bearing cheque No.000289 drawn on Lakshmi Vilas Bank, Kodambakkam Branch in the name of State Bank of India A/c Income Tax. The complainant has received a letter dated 12.12.2013 i.e. Ex.A3 from the income tax authorities demanding the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.1,77,388/- as the income tax for the assessment year 2011-2012.  Since the challan for the above said deposit made by the complainant in the opposite party bank for the said amount paid towards income tax was missing, in order to produce the same the complainant has requested the opposite party bank the copy of the said challan by letter dated 05.02.2014. However the opposite party has not furnished the said copy of the challan and complainant has to pay a sum of Rs.1,77,388/- to the income tax authorities despite of amount paid by the complainant in the opposite party bank, as such the opposite party bank has committed deficiency of service and claims a sum of Rs.1,77,388/- and compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- against the opposite party in the complaint.  Though the complainant has filed Ex.A1 the copy of the cheque dated 05.01.2012 and the statement of account of the bank Lakshmi Vilas Bank as Ex.A2  as documents for proof for the remittance of the said amount in the opposite party’s bank, complainant being the partnership firm and the alleged transactions i.e. deposit of amount towards the payment of income tax in the opposite party’s bank is relating to the said partnership company, as such the alleged transactions is considered to be a commercial transaction. Further there is no averment in the complaint that the said partnership company is run for the livelihood of the partners.  Further there is no averment in the complaint that the complainant has paid any commission for the said deposit amount to the opposite party bank as consideration to avail the service of the opposite party in the alleged transaction of depositing the alleged amount for the payment of Income Tax.   Therefore the complainant cannot be considered to be a consumer  under Consumer Protection Act 1986, since the complainant has not availed the service of opposite party on payment of consideration and the complainant company is a partnership company and amount said to have been deposited for the payment of Income Tax to be payable by the said company which considered to be the transaction relating to business which is commercial in nature. 

6.     Further it is also pertinent to mention that the said amount of Rs.1,69,603/- remitted by the complainant company in the opposite party bank is towards the account of Income Tax Department,  therefore the said amount would have been sent to the account of Income Tax Department by the opposite party bank. The grievance raised by the complainant against opposite party bank would be that on the request made by the complainant by letter   dated   05.02.2014, the opposite party has not  furnished the copy of the challan, even the said non production of the copy of the challan is not to be considered to be a deficiency of service under Consumer Protection Act 1986, since the complainant is a partnership company and for the payment of Income Tax, the alleged amount said to have been deposited with opposite party which relates to commercial in nature and even without payment of any consideration in availing the service of the opposite party.  Therefore this complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite party is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed and complainant is not entitled for any relief sought for in the complaint against the opposite party.  However, if the complainant has got any grievance with regard to the amount deposited in the opposite party bank towards the payment of Income Tax which has not been accounted in the complainant’s Income Tax account, the complainant can very well take appropriate legal action before the Civil Court for the remedy against the opposite party and Income Tax Department.   

        In the result, this complaint is dismissed.  No costs.

        Dictated directly by the President to the Assistant and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this  7^th   day of  September   2016.

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s side documents:

Ex.A1- 5.1.2012  - Copy of cheque issued by the complainant in favour of

                            Opposite party for Rs.1,69,603/-.

Ex.A2- 9.1.2013  - Copy of Statement of account.

 

Ex.A3- 12.12.2013-Copy of summons issued to the complainant by the

                            Income Tax Department.

 

Ex.A4- 5.2.2014  - Copy of notice issued by the complainant to the

                            opposite party bank and postal receipts.

 

Ex.A5-               - Copy of Statement of account.

 

Ex.A6- 25.8.2014 - Copy of legal notice issued by the complainant to the

                            opposite party bank with postal receipts.

Ex.A7- 30.8.2014 - Copy of Acknowledgment.

 

Opposite parties’ Exhibits:-         

 

.. Nil ..   (exparte)

 

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.