LAWS(PUNCDRC)-2011-3-1

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Vs. AMAR DASS

Decided On March 08, 2011
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Appellant
V/S
AMAR DASS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by Punjab National Bank (in short 'the appellant') against the order dated 26.4.2005 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar (in short the 'District Forum') by which the complaint of the respondent was accepted by the District Forum.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant (herein after called as "respondent") had opened a saving fund account No. 21811 with the appellant and deposited an amount of Rs. 3,00,000 in shape of FDR for the period of 72 months and an assurance was given that an amount of Rs.6,09,838 will be paid to the respondent on the maturity of the FDR. But on the maturity of the FDR, the appellants had credited only an amount of Rs. 5,71,580 in the saving account of the respondent which was short by Rs. 38,660. It was alleged that on inquiry, six forms No.16A were handed over by the appellant to the respondent showing the deduction of Rs. 28,230 as income tax from the interest of the FDR from 1997 -1998 to 2002 -2003. The complaint was filed by the respondent praying that the appellant may be directed to pay Rs. 32,282 to the respondent out of which Rs.21,852 were deducted on account of income tax for five years and Rs. 10,430 deducted by the appellant without any explanation and justification with Rs. 10,000 as compensation and Rs. 5,000 as litigation expenses.

(3.) IN reply, appellant appeared and contested the complaint on the grounds that appellant had performed its statutory duties under the Income Tax Act in the matter of deducting the income tax by way of TDS (Tax Deduction at Source) and it had only complied with the statutory obligations under the Income Tax Act. Appellant could not be held guilty of deficiency in service. Appellant had also alleged that respondent had not disclosed his status at the time of opening of account. It was also alleged that respondent had not applied for the Forms every year and as such, there was no deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the appellant.