29.08.2016
MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA, HON’BLE MEMBER.
The present Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against the judgment and order dated 31.03.2015 passed by the Ld. Distsrict Forum, Purba Medinipur in consumer Case No. 91/2014 allowing the complaint with the direction as under :-
“that the case being No. CC/91 of 2014 be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.P. The O.P. is directed to refund Rs.4,672/- by crediting the said amount to the account of the Complainant. The O.P. is further directed to pay Rs.7,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as litigation cost to the Complainant within 40 days from the date of this order, failing which the O.P. will be liable to pay interest @ 10% on the total amount, i.e. Rs.13,672/- till realization. In case the O.P. fails to comply the order of the Forum, the Complainant will be at liberty to execute the order as per law”.
The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the Respondent/Complainant made a TDR amounting to Rs.3,00,000/- under Receipt No. TDCS/0270905181 for a period of 1000 days. The said TDR was refundable along with interest @ 9.75% with effect from 22.03.2011. Thus, the total amount to be repaid was Rs.3,90,357/- on 16.12.2013, being the due date of repayment.
The Appellant/O.P. however, repaid the amount of Rs.3,71,495/- only, i.e. an amount of Rs.18,862/- only was paid less on maturity of the TDR.
The Appellant/O.P. allegedly, deducted TDS to the tune of Rs.6,084/- for the financial year 2011-12, Rs.6,580/- for the financial year 2012-13 and again an amount of Rs.3,410/- for the financial year 2012-13, but, credited an amount of Rs.4,950/- to the Savings Bank Account of the Respondent/Complainant being maintained with him.
Being aggrieved with the arbitrary deduction of TDS by the Appellant/O.P. in spite of PAN number with 15H submitted to the Appellant/O.P., the Respondent/Complainant filed the complaint before the Ld. District Forum praying for –
- payment by the Appellant/O.P. a compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the Respondent/Complainant;
- payment by the Appellant/O.P. a litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- only to the Respondent/Complainant.
Heard the Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant/O.P. who denied all the charges brought against him in the complaint by the Respondent/Complainant and submitted that the amount repaid was less because the TDS deductions which were to be done under the rules by the Bank as the Respondent/Complainant did not submit the Form 15G/H to ensure no deduction of TDS from his TDR account, nor did he furnish his PAN number during the financial years 2011-12 and 2012-13. He, however, submitted the PAN number along with 15G/H during the financial year 2013-14 which led to the credit of Rs.4,950/- to the aforesaid Savings Bank Account of the Respondent/Complainant by the Appellant/O.P.
The Ld. Advocate continued to submit that the deduction of TDS from the accrued interest in TDR account was done absolutely in consonance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act which, as contended, was not considered by the Ld. District Forum while passing the impugned judgment and order.
The Ld. Advocate prayed for allowing the appeal setting aside the impugned judgment and order in the circumstances narrated above.
There was none to represent the Respondent/Complainant.
The Bench considered it expedient to call for the record of the complaint case from the Ld. District Forum in order to verify whether the PAN number and Form 15G/H of the corresponding years were duly submitted by the Respondent/Complainant.
Perused the papers on record. Verified the case record of the Ld. District Forum. It appears form the TDS traces for the financial years 2011-2012 and 2012-13, the PAN number of the Respondent/Complainant has figured in. This indicates that the Respondent/Complainant furnished his PAN number during the financial year 2011-12 and the same can be submitted through no document other than the 15G/H. we are unable to accept the contention of the Ld. Advocate of the Appellant about non-submission of Form 15G/H with PAN number.
The deduction of TDS, as recorded in the aforesaid documents, also appears to be very confusing. It appears that the transaction (2011-12) was much higher than what it should be and the TDS deducted @ 10% whereas in the year (2012-13), the transaction amount was shown less than the year, 2011-12 and the TDS deducted @ 20% and again in the same year i.e. 2012-13 another TDS was deducted @ 10%. Such wide variation of the percentage of TDS deductions in two successive years and even in the same year could not be fairly explained by the Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant/O.P. The Ld. Advocate did not even explain the reason for variation of the transacted amount in the financial years in question.
In consideration of the circumstances narrated hereinabove, we are of the view that there was clear deficiency in service on the part of the Appellant/O.P. Perused the impugned judgment and order wherein a deduction of refund of the tax deposited through TDS has been directed in addition to cost and compensation. We refrain ourselves from passing any order towards refund of the income tax deposited in excess of the demand as the Respondent/Complainant has to follow the procedure to submit his claim for the refund by filing IT returns of the corresponding years.
We, however, are convinced that the Appellant/O.P. is liable to pay cost and compensation to the Respondent/Complainant for the deficiency done by him upon the Respondent/Complainant.
Hence, ordered that the judgment and order of the Ld. District Forum is modified to the extent that the Appellant/O.P. shall pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and a litigation cost of Rs.3,000/- to the Respondent/Complainant within 45 days from the date of this order, failing which, interest @ 9% shall accrue to the total amount of Rs.13,000/- from the date of default till the amount is fully realized. The other direction by the Ld. District Forum is set aside. The appeal stands disposed of.
LCR be returned to the Ld. District Forum immediately.
