THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

 Complaint No.208 of 2022

      Date of Instt. 22.06.2022

      Date of Decision: 11.01.2023

Tarwinder Jeet Singh son of Sh. Ripuduman Singh r/o New Court Complex, Kapurthala.

..........Complainant

Versus

Yes Bank, Jalandhar Road, Kapurthala through its Manager.

….….. Opposite Party

          Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)

                   Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)   

Present:       None for the Complainant.

Sh. A. K. Gandhi, Adv. Counsel for OP.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                This complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that the complainant is having one saving bank account No.004290100000614. The officials of the OP allured the complainant to deposit his amount in Fixed Deposit to earn good interest, as such, the complainant availed the service of the OP and invested his hard earned money amounting to Rs.1,82,014.94 by way of fixed deposit vide account no.0042404000619 on 24.09.2018 for a period of 15 months and 23 days, at the interest rate of 7.1% p.a. The said FDR is to be matured on 16.01.2020 having maturity value of Rs.1,99,630.94. On 25.3.2019, the complainant received two SMSs mentioning that a deduction of Rs.607/- and Rs.647/- has been done on account of TDS of the above said interest on the FDR. As per the Taxation law, no amount of TDS can be deducted upon the interest below Rs.10000/-, but the OP has wrongly deducted Rs.1253/- as TDS against the interest of Rs.7276.47 for a period starting from 24.9.2018 to 29.3.2019, which was wrongly deducted by the respondent bank just because the complainant has already filed a complaint against the respondent bank in the Permanent Lok Adalat for wrong deducting of TDS of his brother and the complainant is pursing the said matter. In order to pressurize the complainant, the respondent wrongly deducted the said TDS amount from the FDR of the complainant. It is a clear cut case of deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and negligence on the part of the OP and as such necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to refund the amount of Rs.1253/- wrongly deducted as TDS and to recalculate the amount of FDR by adding Rs.1253 in its original amount to calculate the future interest. Further, OP be directed to pay Rs.50,000/-as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who filed reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable. Hence, the same deserves dismissal. It is further averred that the complainant has got no cause of action against the answering respondent as the alleged deduction made by the respondent from the FDR of the complainant, is as per Section 194-A of Income Tax Act and has been submitted to the tax authorities under applicable provisions of law. Accordingly, the complainant has got the right to claim the said amount of deduction before the office of Income Tax, if required. Hence, the present complaint may kindly be dismissed. It is further averred that the complainant has not come to the Court with clean hands and has suppressed the true and material facts from this Commission, knowingly and willfully, as such the complainant is not entitled to any relied as claimed by him. Hence, the present complaint may be dismissed. It is further averred that under the Income Tax Act Section 194-A which deals provisions relating to TDS on interest other than ‘interest on securities’. Under this section, any person, not being an individual or a Hindu Undivided Family, who is responsible for paying to a resident any income by way of interest other than income by way of interest on securities, shall at the time of credit of such income to the account of the payee or at the time of the payment thereof in cash or by issue of a cheque or draft or by any other mode, whichever is earlier, deduct income-tax, thereon at the rates enforce. It is further averred that in respect of income credited or paid in respect of time deposits with the Banking company to which the Banking Regulation Act 1949 applies (including any bank or banking institution refer to in section 51 of that act) or with a co-operative society engaged in carrying on the business of banking, the provisions of this clause shall not apply if the aggregate of the amounts of such income credited or paid or likely to be credit or paid during the financial year, does not exceed Rs.10,000/- and the aforesaid amount shall be computed with reference to the income credit or paid by the branch of the banking company or co-operative society, as the case may be. The complainant had opened a fixed deposit with answering respondent bank on 01.03.2012 for an amount of Rs.1,10,000/- with a auto renewal option at the time of maturity and it subsequently got renewed six times. With reference to the dispute raised by the Complainant it is submitted that the complainant earned a consolidated amount of Rs.12,829/- income as Interest from the fixed deposit no.5 (as per above table) for the period 01.04.2018 to 24.9.2018 and on fixed deposit no.6 (as per above table) from September 24, 2018 till March 31, 2019. Hence, the total interest income exceeded Rs.10,000/- in a financial year and therefore, TDS was deduced for financial year 2018-19 of Rs. 1282.90. It has further averred that the present complaint has been filed against the answering respondent with ulterior motive in order to pressurize and harass the answering respondent bank from doing its lawful duties under the law. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant is having one saving bank account, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

3.                Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement.

4.                In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the OP only as none has appeared on behalf of the OP since last so many dates and have also gone through the case file very minutely.

6.                It is admitted fact that the complainant had opened a fixed deposit with the OP and the same was to be matured on 16.01.2020 having maturity value of Rs.1,99,630.94, the copy of the detail of FDRs is Ex.OP-3. As per the written statement filed by the OP, the complainant had opened a FD with the OP on 01.03.2012 for an amount of Rs.1,10,000/- with an auto renewal option at the time of maturity and it subsequently got renewed from time to time and ultimately, it was to be matured on 16.01.2020 with the maturity value of Rs.1,99,630.94. The complainant has proved on record the copy of FDR Ex.C-1/OP-4. The complainant has proved the messages from the OP, received by him, on 25.03.2019, vide which he was intimated that the TDS amount of Rs.607/- and TDS amount of Rs.647/- has been deducted against his FDR on 24.03.2019. As per the submission of the complainant, as per Taxation Law no amount of TDS can be deducted upon the interest below Rs.10,000/-, but the OP has wrongly deducted Rs.1253/- as TDS against the interest of Rs.7276.47 for a period starting from 24.09.2018 to 19.03.2019. The complainant has proved on record the tax deduction statement Ex.C-2.

7.                The contention of the OPs is that the tax has rightly been deducted as per the rules of the Income Tax Law. As per Section 194-A of Income Tax Act, no tax is to be deducted if the aggregate amount of interest during the financial year does not exceed Rs.10,000/-. Once the amount of interest exceeds Rs.10,000/-, then tax is to be deducted on the entire amount. As per Ex.C-1, the interest has accrued as Rs.7276.47 from 24.09.2018 to 29.03.2019. As per Ex.OP-5, the interest has been calculated and tax deducted was from 01.04.2018 to 31.03.2019 i.e. for the financial year and amount of interest has been calculated as Rs.12,829/-, which is more than Rs.10,000/- and therefore as per provision of Section 194-A of Income Tax Act, the tax is to be deducted on the entire amount and the Rs.1282.90/- has been deducted from the aggregate amount of the interest accrued to the complainant on his FDR.

8.                Thus, from the above said documents and the provisions of the Income Tax, the OP has rightly deducted the TDS for the financial year from 01.04.2018 to 31.03.2019 and if the complainant has any grudge, he can claim the refund or/and he can avail the remedy available to him under Income Tax Law. So, from all the angles, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP and the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same is dismissed with no order of costs. Parties will bear their own costs. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

9.                Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated          Jaswant Singh Dhillon    Jyotsna               Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

11.01.2023         Member                          Member           President