State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
State Bank Of India. vs H.P. State Forest Development ... on 16 October, 2019
H. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION SHIMLA
Revision Petition No.: 71/2019
Date of Presentation: 03.10.2019
Date of Order : 16.10.2019
......
State Bank of India through Branch Manager SBI Nurpur Tehsil
Nurpur District Kangra (H.P).
...... Revisionist/opposite party No.3
Versus
1. H.P State Forest Development Corporation Limited
through Divisional Manager Him Kashth Sale Depot
Nurpur District Kangra (H.P).
......Non-revisionist No.1/complainant
2. State Bank of India registered Office State Bank Bhavan
Corporate Centre Madame Cama Road Mumbai
Maharashtra-400021.
......Non-revisionist No.2/opposite party No.1
3. State Bank of India Zonal Office Shimla S.D.A Complex
40 Vikas Nagar Kasumpti Shimla.
......Non-revisionist No.3/opposite party No.2
Coram
Hon'ble Justice P.S. Rana (R) President
Hon'ble Ms. Sunita Sharma Member
Hon'ble Mr. R.K. Verma Member Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For Revisionist: Mr.Hem Singh Thakur vice Mr..Arvind Sharma Advocate.
For Non-revisionists : None.
1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? Yes. State Bank of India Versus H.P. State Forest Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors. R.P. No.71/2019 JUSTICE P.S. RANA (R) PRESIDENT:
Order upon admission of revision petition :-
1. Present revision petition is filed against interim order dated 06.08.2019 passed by learned District Consumer Forum/Commission in consumer complaint No.83/2019 titled H.P. State Forest Development Corporation Versus State Bank of India and Others wherein learned District Consumer Forum/Commission dismissed application filed for impleading Income Tax Authority Nurpur Kangra H.P. as co-
opposite party.
Brief facts of matter :-
2. H.P. State Forest Development Corporation Limited filed consumer complaint under Consumer Protection Act against State Bank of India and others pleaded therein that revisionist on dated 07.06.2017 without any authority and without any request of complainant debited Rs.92342/-
(Ninety two thousand three hundred forty two) from the account of complainant and credited the same with Income Tax Authority. It is pleaded that revisionist wrongly debited twice income tax amount to the tune of Rs.92342/- (Ninety two thousand three hundred forty two) from the account of complainant. It is pleaded that opposite parties committed deficiency in service. Complainant sought relief from opposite parties to pay amount of Rs.92342/- (Ninety two thousand 2 State Bank of India Versus H.P. State Forest Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors. R.P. No.71/2019 three hundred forty two) alongwith interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 07.06.2017 till actual payment. In addition complainant sought relief of payment of Rs.50000/- (Fifty thousand) as compensation for harassment. In addition complainant sought costs of litigation.
3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite parties pleaded therein that Income Tax Authority is necessary party in consumer complaint. It is admitted that opposite parties debited amount of Rs.92342/- (Ninety two thousand three hundred forty two) from the current account of complainant and credited the same with Income Tax Authority Nurpur Kangra H.P. twice. It is pleaded that due to system error in GBSS module the said amount were erroneously credited twice to the Income Tax Authority. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought.
4. During the pendency of consumer complaint revisionist filed application for impleading Income Tax Authority as co-opposite party in consumer complaint. Learned District Consumer Forum/Commission dismissed the application for impleading Income Tax Authority as co- opposite party in consumer complaint. Feeling aggrieved against interim order dated 06.08.2019 passed by learned District Forum/Commission in consumer complaint 3 State Bank of India Versus H.P. State Forest Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors. R.P. No.71/2019 No.83/2019 revisionist filed present revision petition before State Commission.
5. We have heard learned Advocate for revisionist and we have also perused interim order passed by learned District Consumer Forum/Commission carefully.
6. Following points arise for determination in present revision petition.
1. Whether it is expedient in the ends of justice and on the principles of natural justice to admit revision petition for hearing?
2. Final order.
Findings upon point No.1 with reasons:
7. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist that learned District Consumer Forum/Commission has committed illegality and material irregularity by way of not impleading Income Tax Authority Nurpur District Kangra H.P as co-opposite party in consumer complaint and revision petition be admitted for hearing is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that complainant H.P. State Forest Development Corporation Ltd.
did not seek any relief against Income Tax Authority Nurpur District Kangra H.P. in original consumer complaint. Complainant has sought relief against State Bank of India only in original consumer complaint on the ground that State 4 State Bank of India Versus H.P. State Forest Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors. R.P. No.71/2019 Bank of India illegally debited income tax twice from the account of complainant. State Commission is of the opinion that complainant is dominus litis of his matter. In view of the fact that complainant did not seek any relief against Income Tax Authority in original consumer complaint State Commission is of the opinion that Income Tax Authority is not necessary party in consumer complaint No.83/2019. State Commission is of the opinion that revisionist is at liberty to approach Income Tax Authority to refund excess amount paid by revisionist to Income Tax Authority. State Commission is of the opinion that if Income Tax Authority will not refund excess amount then revisionist is at liberty to file appeal under the provisions of Income Tax Act 1961. State Commission is of the opinion that revisionist has alternative effective remedy against Income Tax Authority Nurpur H.P. under Income Tax Act 1961.
8. It is well settled laws that when no relief is sought by complainant against proposed party then proposed party is not necessary party. See. 1997 (1) CPC 76 SCDRC Punjab titled S.D.O. Punjab State Electricity Board and another Vs. Bhag Singh. See. 1997 (2) CPC 215 SCDRC Punjab titled State Bank of India Vs. Tata Iron and Steel Co. See. 2018 (2) SCC 352 titled Kanaklata Das and others Vs. Naba Kumar Das and others.
5
State Bank of India Versus H.P. State Forest Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors. R.P. No.71/2019
9. It is held that consumer complaint No.83/2019 could be disposed of properly and effectively without impleading Income Tax Authority Nurpur District Kangra H.P. as co-opposite party. It is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principles of natural justice to admit revision petition for hearing. Point No.1 is decided accordingly. Point No.2: Final Order
10. In view of findings upon point No.1 above revision petition is not admitted for hearing and same is dismissed in limine. Certified copy of order be sent to parties free of costs forthwith as per rules. Certified copy of order be sent to learned District Consumer Forum/Commission forthwith for information. File of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. Revision petition is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.
Justice P.S. Rana (R) President Sunita Sharma Member R.K. Verma Member 16.10.2019 Manoj 6