BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No. 545-13

Date of Institution: 02.08.2013

Date of Decision: 20-05-2015

Shri Kewal Khanna Advocate son of Sh. Shambhu Nath Khanna aged 78 years, resident of 7-Anand Avenue, Amritsar

Complainant

Versus

1. Yes Bank Ltd., 9^th Floor, Discovery of India Bldg., Nehru Centre, Dr.A.B.Rd.Worli, Mumbai (Maharashtra) 400 018
2. Manager Yes Bank Ltd., The Mall, Amritsar

Opposite Party

Complaint under section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Present: For the Complainant :         In person

              For the Opposite Parties:    Sh.Akhilesh Vyas, Advocate

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member 

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by  Kewal Khanna  under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he is holder of saving bank account No. 005193700000760 with opposite party No.2. According to the complainant as per terms and conditions of the Fixed Deposit Receipts , the opposite parties are required to pay or credit the interest at the agreed rate, as per instructions of the complainant, after the expiry of each quarter from the date of issue of all the FDRs and to recover TDS at the relevant rate of 10% of the interest earned by the complainant on all the FDRs. Complainant has alleged that he submitted Form No. 15-H declaring his estimated  income  which is below the exemption limit of Rs. 2,50,000/- being senior citizen but as on 28^th September  2012, the interest income crossed the said limit and the opposite parties became entitled to recover TDS on the total amount of interest earned on all the FDRs. In case , any part of the TDS remained unrecovered, opposite party could carry over and recover it from the next installment of interest . But the opposite parties instead of recovering the TDS, they debited the total TDS due on the interest paid/credited on all the FDRs as on 28.9.2012 i.e. Rs. 25,047.65 to FDR No. 0051411100021302 despite the fact that only Rs. 704.92 paise as TDS was due . Complainant has alleged that in Income Tax Act there is no provision for deduction of TDS on the interest accrued . As such  the same has necessitated the reversal of the excess amount of TDS of Rs. 24,342.73 paise . Complainant has further alleged that as per the provisions of  section 194-A of Income-Tax Act the opposite parties are required to recover TDS at the rate of 10% of the interest during the period from Ist April, 2012 to 31^st March, 2013. But as per the TDS statement supplied vide letter dated 25.6.2013 issued by opposite party No.2, the complainant earned  interest during the said period to the tune of Rs. 7,02,053.35 paise  when a sum of Rs. 70,205.34 is recovered as TDS thereon. The said deductions were not in consonance with the provision of law and the TDS recovered in all the FDRs is either excess of 10% of the interest earned. Complainant has further alleged that  the said TDS as and when recovered is liable to be remitted to the Income-Tax Department on or before 30^th day of April. But in the present case the opposite parties  on the cost of the 2^nd quarter of the year, remitted a sum of Rs.  4771.46 on 6^th October, 2012 against actual recovery of Rs. 26,458.46 paise as TDS. Opposite parties furnished a detailed TDS calculation revealing that similar amount of Rs. 70,205.34 paise of TDS is recovered from the interest of Rs. 7,02,053.35 paise credited as on 31.3.2013 . The opposite parties mentioned various forged and fabricated entries  of TDS when the amounts of interest shown to have been paid at different point of time during the said period , the details of which is as under:-

Date                     Interest earned               Amount of TDS

28^th Sept 2012      Rs.36,486.20                 Rs.3,648.62

28^th Dec.2012       Rs.36,089.60                 Rs.3,608.96

28^th March 2012   Rs.35,786.50                 Rs.3,578.65

31^st March, 2013  Rs. 1,590.70                            Rs.    159.07

31^st March, 2013  Rs.1,47,870.20              Rs.14,787.02

Total                    Rs.2,21,337.00              Rs. 22,133.70

According to the complainant infact the interest of Rs. 14,395.86 has been earned in the said FDR. Complainant has alleged that opposite parties have tempered with the record relating to the FDRs of the complainant . As per the e-mail of the opposite parties dated 21^st May 2013 a sum of Rs. 55,418.32 could be recovered against the actual TDS due of Rs. 70,205.34 paise  and the balance of Rs. 14,787.02 is recovered by the opposite parties  from the saving bank account of the complainant on 10.4.2013 which amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to debit entry of Rs. 24,342.73 paise made on 28.9.2012 against FDR No.005141199921302  allegedly as unrecovered TDS and the illegally recovered amount of Rs. 2289.83 as  TDS may kindly be ordered to be reversed . Excess amount of TDS of Rs. 22,133.70 paise  may also to be reversed and refunded to the complainant alongwith interest. Amount of Rs. 14,787.02 illegally recovered from the saving bank account of the complainant be also refunded to the complainant alongwith interest. Compensation of Rs. 50000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.

2. On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that although it is correct that the complainant is entitled to the interest accrued in the FDRs which is regularly being credited to his savings bank account and as per law, TDS applicable is also required to be deducted by the opposite party and deposited with the Central Government. It was also submitted that as per rules TDS gets calculated when the minimum limit of Rs. 10000/- has been crossed for the depositors during the payout of a single FDR. TDS gets deducted only from the amount which is available to payout/compounding. Therefore interest has been calculated and deducted according. TDS of Rs. 70,205.34 paise for the financial year 2012-13 was deductible from the total interest of Rs. 7,02,053.35 paise  payable to the complainant . Out of which a sum of Rs. 55,418.34 was recovered and unrecovered TDS is Rs. 14,787.02 paise for the said financial year.  It was denied that the entries are  against the value of FDRs, as alleged.  While submitting that opposite parties have acted as per legal norms and rules and correctly charged TDS out of the interest earned and while denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Complainants tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-17.
4. Opposite Party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Nishant Verma, Cluster Head Ex.R-1, copy of letter dated 23.11.2013 Ex.R-2, copy of form No. 16A Ex.R-3, TDS details of Kewal Khanna Ex.R-4.
5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the complainant and the  ld.counsel for the Opposite Party  and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the complainant and  ld.counsel for  the Opposite Party.
6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that the  complainant has saving bank account bearing No.005193700000760 with opposite party No.2. The complainant has alleged that he has 20 to 27 FDRs valued about Rs. 70 lacs. He submitted that as per terms and conditions of the FDRs the opposite parties are required to pay or credit the interest at the agreed rate after the expiry of each quarter and to recover TDS at the prevalent rate of 10% of the interest earned. The complainant alleges that he submitted form15-H declaring his estimated income during the year that his income is below the exemption limit being senior citizen. On 28.9.2012 the interest income crossed the said limit and as such the opposite party became entitled to recover TDS on the total amount of interest earned on all the FDRs. The complainant submitted that the opposite party was required to recover TDS @ 10% of the interest paid/accrued to on his FDRs during the period from 1.4.2012 to 31.3.2013 but as per the TDS statement supplied vide letter dated 25.6.2013 issued by opposite party No.2, the complainant earned as paid & credited as well as accrued interest during the said period to the tune of Rs. 7,02,053.35 paise when a sum of Rs. 70,205.34 is recovered as TDS. Said deductions were not in consonance with the provisions of law . The said TDS as and when recovered is liable to be remitted to the Income-Tax Department  on or before 7 days from the end of month  in which the deduction is made. But in the present case the opposite party on the close of second quarter of the year remitted a sum of Rs. 4771.46 paise on 6^th October, 2012 as per form No. 16-A Ex.C-8 against actual recovery of Rs. 26,458.46 paise as TDS. Again in form 16-A for the third quarter Ex.C-9 the opposite party No.2 deposited Rs. 22,964.78 when Form 16-A for the last quarter has not been furnished. The complainant further alleges that in one of his FDR No.005141100021302  the interest as well as TDS has never been actually credited or paid. He submitted that the entries are ridiculous as against  the value of the said FDR of Rs. 1,30,000/-, the opposite parties are shown to have paid /credited the interest to the tune of Rs. 2,21,337/- and the amount of TDS deducted Rs. 22,133.70 paise . The complainant alleges that infact the interest accrued was Rs. 14,395.86 paise  as per documents Ex.C-4 and C-8. As such the opposite parties have tampered with the material record relating to the FDRs of the complainant with ulterior motive  thereby  to jeopardize  the interest of the complinant. As per e-mail of opposite parties Ex.C-3 a sum of Rs. 55,418.32 paise could be recovered against the actual TDS due  of Rs. 70,205.34 and the balance  of Rs. 14,787.02 paise  is recovered by the opposite parties from the saving bank account of the complainant on 10^th April, 2013 on the ground that TDS is recoverable from the complainant. On perusal of form 26AS from the Website of Income-tax Department, it is reflected that opposite parties have deposited Rs.55,612.95 paise as TDS against the interest earned by the complainant on his FDRs. The recovery of Rs. 14,787.02 paise made from the saving bank account of the complainant after the close of the financial year is against the facts . Such TDS was not recoverable on the interest earned by the complainant on the FDRs. Opposite parties have illegally debited this amount to the saving bank account of the complainant. The complainant has  given so many details of different FDRs alleging that  the interest accrued to each and every FDRs quarterly has not been properly mentioned by the opposite party and the TDS debited on the interest accrued to the different FDRs of the complainant was debited either less or more and ultimately the opposite party  has wrongly debited Rs.14787.02 paise to the saving bank account of the complainant as payment of TDS to the Income-tax Department. Ld.complainant submitted that opposite party has made excess debit entry of Rs. 24342.73 paise on 28.9.2012 and illegally recovered amount of Rs. 2289.83 paise as TDS on 31.3.2013. They have also debited excess amount of TDS of Rs. 22,133.70 paise . The amount of Rs. 14787.02 paise has been illegally recovered from the saving bank account of the complainant. All this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties qua the complainant.
7. Whereas the case of the opposite parties is that the complainant has so many FDRs with opposite party No.2 bank, the accounts of which have been duly maintained by the opposite party bank and each and every detail is being supplied to the complainant.  Opposite party is bound to deduct TDS on the interest earned by the complainant on different FDRs. No excess TDS has been recovered on interest earned by the complainant on the FDRs. The TDS has been correctly debited and deposited with the Government in Income-Tax Department for which required TDS certificate has been duly provided to the complainant for claiming refund of the same, if applicable from the Income-tax Department. The matter relating to account i.e. interest accrued on the FDRs and quarterly deduction of TDS is complicated matter related to account which does not fall within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act and such cases are not summarily triable . The complainant should have approached the Civil Court and the present complaint is not maintainable before the same. Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that the entire amount deducted from the account of the complainant  as TDS has been duly deposited with the Govt. in Income-tax Department. No excess TDS has been recovered and everything has been accounted for and the entire calculations have been supplied to the complainant. The TDS, if any, deducted excess or excess amount has been deposited with the Income-tax Department , the complainant is entitled to get refund of the same. Ld.counsel for the opposite parties submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite  parties qua the complainant.
8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant himself has submitted that he has about 20-27 FDRs valued about Rs. 70 lacs with opposite party No.2 bank, where the complainant has saving bank account bearing No. 005193700000760. The complainant has given so many calculations in his complaint  that in one FDR , the opposite party debited Rs.25,047.65 paise, whereas the due amount of TDS was less. Further the opposite party debited Rs. 7049.18 paise . In one FDR the opposite party has debited Rs. 22,133.70 paise ,whereas infact the complainant has earned interest Rs. 14395/86 paise. The opposite party credited Rs. 55,418.32 paise against the actual TDS due of Rs. 70,205.34 paise, whereas the opposite party has already debited Rs. 70,205.34 paise. But the opposite party has stated that balance amount of Rs. 14787.02 paise have been recovered by the opposite party from the saving bank account of the complainant  as TDS. This entire matter relates to interest accrued on so many FDRs of the complainant with opposite party No.2 and TDS debited on the  interest accrued on the FDRs of the complainant is deductible quarterly and the opposite party is justified in deducting the TDS on the interest accrued on the FDRs of the complainant quarterly, which is very complicated matter. The complainant has not produced any account detail certified by the CA to prove each and every entry  of every FDR regarding the interest accrued quarterly and the TDS deducted by the opposite party bank on that interest quarterly and ultimately how much amount became due payable by the complainant as TDS and how much amount has been deducted by opposite party No.2 bank as TDS , whereas the opposite party has supplied all the details of the TDS deducted from the account of the complainant  and  the same was deposited with the Income-tax Department of India. Consequently we hold that it is a very complicated matter relating to interest accrued on different FDRs of the complainant and the TDS deducted on the interest accrued to different FDRs of the complainant and that  too quarterly is a matter relating to accounts. As such this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide such complicated accounts matter which require detailed evidence and statements. It has been held by Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana in case Punjab National Bank Vs. Amrit Lal Bhamba in 1997(ISJ (Banking) 207 as well as by Hon’ble National Commision, New Delhi in case 1(1995), CPJ (NC), titled as M/s.Omika Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Central Bank of India that having regard to the nature of the contention raised, there can not be a satisfactory adjudication of the issues involved in the time bound proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act. This Original Petition is dismissed on this short ground  without prejudice to the right of the complainants to seek redress for the allegations of excess interest charged by the Opposite Party-Bank in a suit, if he is so advised.  It was further held that where there is complaint regarding the charging of the excess interest and various entries in ledger of the bank, it is not fit case to be decided under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Civil court is the proper Forum.
9. It has been held by the Hon’ble  Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad in case Ashok Leyland Finance Limited Vs. Himanshu S.Thumar 2005(II) CPJ page 92 that account dispute is not consumer dispute. The Hon’ble Gujarat  State Commission has held that the dispute presented by the complainant before the Ld.Forum, essentially relates to the account between the parties. This Commission has time and often held that the dispute which pertains to account between the parties cannot be said  to be a consumer dispute. It is essentially a civil dispute. Hence, the complaint could not have been entertained by the District Forum. Similar are the facts of the present case . As such we hold that the dispute between the parties in the present complaint is essentially relates to the  account  between the parties and as such it is not a consumer dispute, rather it is a civil dispute.
10. Consequently we hold that present complaint is not maintainable. Therefore, it is ordered that complaint be returned to the complainant. The complainant shall be at liberty to file the present case before the appropriate authority/court. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
11. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Dated: 20.05.2015                                                               (Bhupinder Singh)                                                                                               President

                                            (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)    (Anoop Sharma)

              Member                               Member