State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mani Ram Garg vs Greater Mohali Area Development ... on 29 March, 2023
SECOND ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
Execution Application No.368 of 2018
In
Consumer Complaint No.678 of 2017
Date of Institution : 28.08.2018
Date of Reserve : 06.03.2023
Date of Decision : 29.03.2023
Mani Ram Garg, son of Sh.Rameshwar Dass, Resident of 65A, Anaj
Mandi, VPO-Dhand, District -Kaithal, Haryana.
.....Decree Holder /Complainant
Versus
Greater Mohali Area Development Authority, through Chairman, IAS,
Room No.201, PUDA Bhawan, SAS Nagar, Mohali-160062, Email -
[email protected]
.......Judgment Debtor/Opposite party
Execution Application under Section 27
of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Quorum:-
Mr. Harinderpal Singh Mahal, Presiding Judicial Member
Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member Present:-
For the Decree Holder : Sh.Gurdarshan Singh, GPA For the JDs : Sh.G.S.Arshi, Advocate KIRAN SIBAL, MEMBER This Execution Application No.368 of 2018, which has come for adjudication before this Commission seeking the relief "to comply with the order dated 12.01.2018 passed by this Commission in Consumer Complaint No.678 of 2017 and the JDs be burdened with exemplary costs of Rs.50,000/-"
2. The back drop of the case is that the complainant/decree holder filed the consumer complaint bearing CC No.678 of 2017, where the following reliefs were granted:2
Execution Application 368 of 2018 In Consumer Complaint No.678 of 2017 "i) to refund the amount of Rs.60,44,439/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the respective various dates of payment till realization, as per Rule 17 of PAPRA;
ii) to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as lump sum compensation for the mental agony, harassment and towards litigation expenses.
3. The order was challenged before the Hon'ble National Commission by way of First Appeal No.1340 of 2018, which was dismissed. The JDs further challenged the order of the Hon'ble National Commission before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the case was remanded back to the Hon'ble National Commission by condoning the delay and with the directions to decide the case on merits.
4. During the proceedings, the JDs deposited a sum of Rs.1,02,75,963/- favouring State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab along with calculation sheet, duly certified by the Section Officer of GMADA, SAS Nagar. Vide order dated 19.12.2019, the JDs submitted that as the case has still not been restored before the Hon'ble National Commission, the amount deposited cannot be released to the DH. However, the amount of Rs.1,02,75,963/- was released to the DH on furnishing the Indemnity bond/surety bond of the equivalent amount in this Commission.
5. Now the issue pending before this Commission with regard to the deduction of TDS, which as per the learned counsel for the JDs stated that JDs have deposited a sum of Rs.4,59,058/- with the Income Tax Department on 07.01.2020 and referred Form No.16-A 3 Execution Application 368 of 2018 In Consumer Complaint No.678 of 2017 and he further submitted that DH can claim the amount on the basis of the said Form.
6. On the other side, learned counsel for the decree holder placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this Commission in Execution Application No.102 of 2017, titled 'Gaurav Mutneja Vs. GMADA & Ors.' Decided on 04.04.2018 as per which, it is submitted that though the payment has been made by the judgment debtors as per the decree but they are not entitled to deduct the TDS from the payment. Moreover, the TDS Certificate was not supplied to him. He further contended that deducted amount of TDS can only be claimed by the JDs who deposited the same and the same may be refunded to them by the JDs themselves.
7. Both the parties have submitted their calculation sheets. As per the calculation sheet and as per the record available on the file, a sum of Rs.1,02,75,963/- has already been released vide cheques No.221783 to 221793, dated 16.03.2010 after taking the indemnity bond.
8. As per the calculation sheet of the JDs, after receipt of this amount, the decree has been fully satisfied and TDS has been deposited to the Income Tax Department and Form-16 has already been produced by the JDs in the court. However, learned counsel for the decree holder contended that the decree holder will not be able to take refund from the Income tax authorities, which is not acceptable because the TDS was to be deducted on the payment made to him and he can take the benefit of the same from the competent authority. 4
Execution Application 368 of 2018 In Consumer Complaint No.678 of 2017
9. The only issue left in the present execution application whether the refund of TDS amount, already deposited by the judgment debtor with the Income Tax authorities, can be refunded to the decree holder or not?
10. No doubt, the judgment debtor was not to deduct the tax on the interest amount because the decree holder did not get any service from the judgment debtor and amount paid by the judgment debtor to the decree holder is a compensation amount with interest for not rendering their service. However, we are fortified with the judgment of Hon'ble National Commission passed in Execution Application No.122 of 2019 titled 'Rita Bakshi Vs. M3M India Limited & Ors.' decided on 02.03.2022, wherein, it has been observed as under:
"15. We also observe that the tax deducted at source of the compensation appears to be is a mistake with no malafide and even though the tax ought not to have been deducted it is also seen that the same has not been retained by the judgment debtors and has been deposited in the account of decree holder in the Income Tax Department.
16. In the present facts and circumstances, thought we explicitly and unambiguously make it clear that tax ought not to have been deducted at source on compensation awarded under the Consumer Protection Act even if it was computed "by way of interest" on the deposited amount, but in the instant case, noting the submissions of the learned counsel for the judgment debtors, the ends of justice will be met with if the decree holder takes the necessary steps to get the tax deducted at source duly adjusted/refunded from the Income Tax Department as per its rules and procedures, and information as required 5 Execution Application 368 of 2018 In Consumer Complaint No.678 of 2017 from the end of the judgment debtors is provided by them......"
11. The present case before us is also on the similar lines as the judgment debtor has already deposited the TDS amount before the competent authorities and has not retained the aforesaid amount. It has also supplied Form -16, which has been taken on the record, as per order dated 30.01.2023.
12. In view of the judgment cited above, we are of the opinion that no prejudice would be caused to the decree holder as the amount is deposited with the Tax authorities and the decree holder can get the benefit by using Form-16, already issued to the decree holder, for refund of the amount by approaching the Income Tax Department, as per rules and procedures.
13. Accordingly, this execution application is disposed of with liberty to the decree holder to approach the Income Tax Department to get the amount adjusted/refunded as per the rules and procedures and the judgment debtor is directed to co-operate with decree holder to complete the documentation regarding the TDS, if required.
(HARINDERPAL SINGH MAHAL) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (KIRAN SIBAL) MEMBER March 29th ,2023 parmod