DISTRICT CONSUMERS DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, SAMBALPUR
C.C. No.82 of 2017
Mrs Gayatri Dash,
W/o Sanjeeb Kumar Dash
Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya Campus
Qr. No. 24, P.O. – Kalamati
Via – C.A. Chiplima
Dist. – Sambalpur-768025 ……………… Petitioner
-VERSUS –
- Mr Md. Sazid (Supervisor)
C/o SREI INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCES L.
(Adhaar Enrolment Centre)
Near Raja Photo Studio, Goshala
P.O- Kalamati,Via – C.A Chiplima
Dist. – Sambalpur-768025
2. Mr. Swadhin Naik (Operator)
C/o SREI INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCES L.
(Adhaar Enrolment Centre)
Near Raja Photo Studio, Goshala
P.O- Kalamati,Via – C.A Chiplima
Dist. - Sambalpur
3. Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI)
Planning Commission, Government of India,
3rd Floor, Tower II, Jeevan Bharati Building
Connaught Circus Delhi-110001 .………….. Opp. Parties
For Complainant : Through representative of Complainant.
For O.P.s No.2 : Sankar Bhanja Adv. & Associates
For O.P.s No.1 & 3 : None
PRESENT:- SHRI A.P. MUND, PRESIDENT
SMT. S. TRIPATHY, MEMBER
SHRI K.D.DASH, MEMBER
Date of Order: 18.07.2018
Shri A.P. Mund, President
The case of the complainant is as follows;
- The complainant along with her husband approached one Aadhaar Enrolment Centre i.e. Opposite Party No. 1 & 2 on dt. 14.11.2017 for updation of her Mobile Number in Aadhaar Card as her mobile Number was not linked with her Aadhaar Number although she had her Aadhaar Card earlier.
- After the biometrics were verified and mobile number saved in Aadhaar system online by the operator, the Acknowledgement Receipt of up dation request was generated and handed over to the Complainant.
- The supervisor, Mr. Md. Sazid charged the complainant with Rs. 200/- (Rupees two hundred ) only for this service. The complainant and her husband tried to persuade and convince both the operator and the supervisor that the approved rate fixed by UIDAI for such services is only Rs. 25/- (Rupees twenty five )only and not Rs. 200/- which they are levying unduly. But both operator and supervisor insisted on taking Rs. 200/- from the complainant. The supervisor also showed his financial transaction Register which revealed that they were taking Rs. 200/- without providing any money receipt for any service related to Aadhaar card. They were forced to pay Rs. 150/- with Rs. 50/- was to be paid later on.
- The husband of the complainant contacted Aadhaar Customer care helpline center at toll free number 1947. He was informed through helpline center that the fees for any up dation or correction costs only Rs. 25/-. They should not pay Rs. 200/- to any agency. The couple complained to the O.P’s but it fell in deaf ears.
- That day the complainant and her husband have phoned and Emailed several times on different dates to the UIDAI (
- After a week when the complainant checked the status of up dation request online on the website of UIDAI she came to know that the up dation request has been rejected due to “processing error”, which was deliberately created by the O.P. No. 1.
- They were made to run to the O.P’s place no. of times. Later on, the operator very cunningly lied that the complainant’s Aadhaar number has been deactivated, and that he would see the issue next day.
- On verifying Aadhaar number online at home the complainant found that her Aadhaar number was active and not deactivated. The complainant, with her husband again rushed to the agency along with their laptop and showed them the fact. That her Aadhaar number was not deactivated.
- To this the operator Mr. Swadhin Naik (OP No. 2) reacted very harshly and said that this is all because of their arguments with them (OP 1 & 2). He further said that knowingly they are harassing the complainant and her husband all due to non surrender before them. The complainant should not question the undue amount they are taking.
- More than 21 days have elapsed, although the complainant paid Rs. 150/- in place of Rs. 25/- to the agency, her mobile number has not been updated in her Aadhaar number. For the irresponsible, vindictive and money-minded attitude of O.P. No. 1 & 2 the complainant and her family have undergone great mental and physical sufferings.
- The complainant is unable to link her Adhaar number with her mutual fund (SIP) investments, various LIC policies on line which is very essential on her part. Without this all accounts may be freezed. It is mandatory that mobile number must be linked with Aadhaar number so as to link Aadhaar number with those SIPs and other various Insurance Policies. Many companies have fixed deadline as 31.12.2017 for linking Aadhaar with their portfolios.
On the basis of above the complainant prays for the following reliefs;
PRAYER
- An exemplary punishment /penalty to the operator and the supervisor (OP No. 1 & 2) so that they will not dare in future to harass any resident, especially women.
- An advisory to OP No. 1 & 2 to levy only the due charges as prescribed by UIDAI, Govt. of India.
- Rs. 20000/-(Rupees twenty thousand) for mental agony, harassment and inconvenience due to unfair trade practices on the part of OP No. 1 &2.
- Rs. 1000 /-(Rupees one thousand) only towards the cost of this proceedings.
- Any other relief , which is not prayed, as deemed fit and proper by the Hon’ble forum.
Documents filed by the complainant ;
- Xerox copy of the Acknowledgement Receipt of Aadhaar updation request issued by the said Agency.
- Copy of Aadhaar Card.
- Copy of emails to UIDAI.
- Copy of replies from UIDAI.
- Later on dt. 20.06.18 filed copy of email sent by complainant’s husband to Sambalpur Collector.
- Acknowledgement receipt given by the Aadhaar Enrolment agency and gave detailed comparison of the one given by OP No. 1 &2.
The O.P. No. 1 & 3 were set ex parte and W.S. is only filed by the O.P. No. 2 which is as follows :
- That it is true the O.P. No. 2 was working as computer operator in the firm of O,P. No. 1 of this case and it is pertinent to note that O.P No.2 is not working in the firm today.
- That it is not in the knowledge of the O.P. No. 2 whether the petitioner visited the shop or not, as due to over loaded of applications, it is not possible for a staff to remember each and every person/customer.
- Admitted to the non-linking due to technical faults.
- That it is purely the decision of the owner of the firm (O.P. No. 1) that how much will charge for the updation and the operator is no way responsible for charges received by the O.P. No. 1. Strongly denies misbehaving the complainant & her husband.
- At no point of time O.P. No.2 has intentionally and deliberately harassed anybody including the petitioner. As a working staff, the operator has to obey the orders of his employer (O.P. No. 1) as such O.P. No. 2 is not responsible for any act of O.P. No. 1
- If any adverse order passed against the O.P. No. 2 he will be highly prejudice
O R D E R
This seems to be a simple case of harassment and overcharging beyond the price fixed by O.P. No. 3.
The O.P. No. 1 & 3 are set ex- parte. Went through the contents of the complaint petition, written version filed by O.P. No. 2, and the documents filed by the complainant to substantiate its case.
The O.P. No. 2 totally denies any involvement in the case on the basis that he was an employee. But the complainant has all the grievances against him.
According to the complainant basically O.P. No. 2 misbehaved with the complainant (along with O.P. No. 1). He tore off a portion of the acknowledgement, thereby hiding the amount mentioned to be paid by a person asking for updates.
To these allegations made by the complainant’s husband, the O.P. No. 2 has no answer. He examined the complainant’s husband in the form of some question and answer format to which the complainant’s husband gave befitting reply. Thereby bolstering the case of the complainant. He also argued his case.
So as mentioned above the issues to be drawn up is simple
(i) whether the O.P. No. 2 is equally responsible for misbehaviour &harassment meted out to the complainant.
(ii) Whether there was an overcharge by the O.P. No. 1 & 2.
(iii)Whether O.P. No. 3 is responsible for the overcharging by not taking prompt action in enquiring into the activities of the Aadhaar enrolment centre and putting a lid on overcharging.
The case is decided on the basis of argument made by complainant’s husband (Who is authorized by the complainant herself) as well as argument advanced by the Learned Advocate of O.P. No. 2.
As per acknowledgment the charges are fixed i.e. Rs. 25/- is to be charged for demographic or any other biometric up date. The member (totaling 18) of “Maa Chandi Byabasayika Sangha” has made complaints of overcharging to the tune of Rs. 200/-.
The argument on behalf of complainant proves the issue no., I & II There were some emails sent to the O.P. No. 3 as well as the Collector of Sambalpur. But no action was taken. Hence O.P. No. 3 is guilty of inaction/complacency or they have not taken their job seriously. Hence some directions are being issued to improve the situation.
The complainant’s husband sent many email. The reply/response by UIDAI is very disappointing. They tried to sweep the complainant under carpet. Instead of investigating and providing relief to the victim of overcharging, O.P. No. 3 is simply taking time under the stock head “your complaint is being looked into”. Taking into consideration the fact that the Central Government has made mandatory to link Aadhaar numbers under various schemes, it is felt that the UIDAI must follow the minimum guidelines which are as follows :
(i) The UIDAI should verify the credentials of the person before granting certificate to run business of generating Aadhaar card. They should not be allowed to shift or change address. Without proper notification.
(ii) The UIDAI should bring in mechanism for redressal or to address the genuine complaint of customer regarding overcharge or harassment.
(iii)The UIDAI should investigate into complaint & if found true they should take exemplary step against the delinquent agency/operator to restore confidence of the public.
Coming to merit of this case, we found that this is a very sad case of harassment, misbehavior & greed. From the petition and W.S. and documents filed and from argument addressed, it can be conveniently held That the complainant & her husband are the victim of harassment, misbehavior & greed by the O.P’s jointly.
The O.P. No. 1 & 2 by overcharging have violated the dictat under 2 (c) (iv) (a) & committed deficiency by not providing proper service of linking phone number to the Adhaar card which was earlier/already issued. By this way the O.P. No. 1 &2 have deprived the complainant from linking her Aadhaar card with some other service providers like Bank, LIC & mutual Funds. Basing on the above facts, we hold that the O.P.’s No. 1 & 2 are guilty under sec 2 (c) (iv) (a) as well as misbehavior & harassment meted out to the customer. Hence O.P. No. 1 & 2 are jointly & severally pay Rs. 8,000/- to the complainant.
The O.P. No. 3 is guilty of not making any enquiry into the complainants or made any attempt to redress the genuine complaint of the complainant’s husband. In future they should follow the guideline given or improve upon it for proper functioning of the Private Aadhaar Centers.
The O.P. No. 3 must hence forth give proper Advertisements educating the public as well as sensitizing the proprietors of Aadhaar centers regarding overcharging & proper behavior. They should also evolve mechanism for proper redressal of complainants as enunciated above.
Sd/-
SHRI A.P.MUND
Sd/- PRESIDENT.
SMT S.TRIPATHY. Member I agree.
Sd/-
SHRI K.D.DASH. Member I agree.
Sd/-
Dictated and corrected by me.
PRESIDENT.
