The district consumer disputes redressal forum has penalised State Bank of India (SBI) in Sector 17, Panchkula, for failing to deposit the TDS (tax deducted at source) amount despite deduction from a pensioner’s account. The forum directed the bank to file a revised TDS statement with income tax department which shows the credit of TDS deducted from the complainant into the income tax account/PAN number of the complainant.
The forum has also directed SBI to pay ₹5,000 to complainant Raj Rani Sachdeva, 65, a resident of Dhakoli, in compensation for mental agony and ₹5,000 as litigation expense. The forum has also directed the bank manager to personally take up the matter with the concerned TDS officer of the I-T department in this respect, and to do the needful to resolve the matter including rectifying of record.
Sachdeva is drawing a pension from SBI and the bank had deducted ₹5,204 from the pension income of the complainant in the year 2017-2018 on account TDS, to the deposit the sum with I-T department. The opposite party assured the complainant that they deposited the amount of TDS deducted into her income tax account. After going through Form 16, the complainant got to know that the income tax has not been deposited despite the deduction. After verification, it was found that the sum had been deposited in another PAN number which pertains to her husband Ved Parkash Sachdeva, who is a joint account holder of the account.
The complainant asked the bank to take up the matter with I-T authorities to credit the amount in her income tax account, and even sent several mails in this regard, but the bank took no action. Upon notice, the SBI appeared to contest the complaint but did not file a written statement despite availing several opportunities. Therefore, the defence of the Opposite Party was closed by the forum.
{{/usCountry}}The complainant asked the bank to take up the matter with I-T authorities to credit the amount in her income tax account, and even sent several mails in this regard, but the bank took no action. Upon notice, the SBI appeared to contest the complaint but did not file a written statement despite availing several opportunities. Therefore, the defence of the Opposite Party was closed by the forum.
{{/usCountry}}Considering the facts, the forum observed that despite repeated requests and letters, bank officials had failed to act, thereby compelling the complainant to send a legal notice requesting to rectify the mistake.
The forum ruled that, “...it is proved beyond doubt that the opposite party throughout remained unconcerned, negligent and grossly deficient in its services towards the complainant. The opposite party turned a blind eye to her repeated requests and even no explanation was offered for the inaction. In view of observations made, we allow the complaint and hold the opposite party (SBI) grossly deficient in services towards the complainant.”