IN THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI Present : Hon’ble Thiru. Justice R. SUBBIAH….. PRESIDENT F.A. No. 309 of 2022 (against the order dated 17.05.2022 passed in C.C. No. 17 of 2018 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tiruvannamalai)

---

Pronounced on : 14.03.2025 R. Gopi Son of Ramamoorthy Audior GS Ramprabu & Co Residing at No.14, Irattai Pillaiyar Koil Street Tiruvannamalai Town and District .. Appellant/Opposite Party Versus N. Sampath Son of Natarajan No.25, Thenmathathi Street Tiruvannamalai Town and District .. Respondent/Complainant For Appellant : Mr. V. Balaji For Respondent : Ms. G.S. Thilagavathi This appeal came up for final hearing on 13.09.2024 and upon hearing the arguments of the counsel for the appellant as well as the counsel for the respondent and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following

ORDER

R. Subbiah, J, President This appeal is filed questioning the validity and/or correctness of the Order dated 17.05.2022 passed in C.C. No. 17 of 2018 on the file of The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tiruvannamalai.

2. The respondent-complainant herein has filed the aforesaid C.C. No.

17 of 2018 praying to direct the appellant-Opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1,02,830, being the penalty amount paid by him, for the deficiency of service rendered by the appellant-Opposite party and Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for the damages caused by the Opposite party apart from Rs.25,000/- towards the cost of the proceedings.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties to this appeal can be referred to as per their rank before the District Commission as complainant and opposite party.

4. According to the Complainant, he is a business man and was also one of the clients of the Opposite Party. It was stated that the father of the Opposite Party namely Mr. Ramamoorthy along with one Prabakaran were jointly running the auditor office in the name and style of G.S. Ramprabhu & Co., at No.14, Irattai Pillaiyar Koil Street, Tiruvannamalai. Subsequently, the aforesaid partners have rescinded the Partnership business and were running separate Auditor’s Office. According to the Complainant, the Opposite Party has been looking after the auditing of the complainant’s two firms for the past 25 years. While so, during the month of July 2018, the complainant approached the Opposite Party to get a statement of account report from the Sales Tax Department to submit it to the Bank so as to regularise the over draft account. During such time, the Complainant came to know that the Opposite Party failed to upload the accounts of the Complainant from the month of July 2017 due to which the Complainant was made to pay penalty to the tune of Rs.1,02,830/-. It was stated that on 5^th of every month, the Complainant will furnish all the statement of accounts to the Opposite Party in respect of the business run by him so as to enable him to scrutinize and reconcile it for the purpose of tax compliance. It was also stated that the Complainant has to submit the statement of account and IT Returns from the Income Tax Department to the bank before July 2018 so as to retain the OD Account. When the Complainant questioned the Opposite Party for the delay in submission of the account and the consequential penalty which he was made to pay, the Opposite Party gave an evasive and irresponsible reply. In such circumstance, the Complainant engaged another Auditor through whom the Complainant came to know that the Opposite Party did not furnish the accounts of sales relating to his business from July 2017 and therefore, he has to pay penalty for non-disclosure of sales account to the Department. Accordingly, the complainant paid the penalty amount of Rs.1,02,830/- which is wholly attributable towards the deficiency of service rendered by the Opposite Party. Highlighting the above defects committed by the Opposite Party, the Complainant sent a notice on 04.09.2018 calling