THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOZHIKODE.
C.C.73/2014
Dated this the 3rd day of April, 2017
(Smt. Rose Jose, B.Sc, LLB. : President)
Smt.Beena Joseph, M.A : Member
Sri. Joseph Mathew, M.A., L.L.B. : Member
ORDER
Present: Joseph Mathew, Member:
This petition is filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The case of the petitioner is that, the PAN card of his father Sri. Kasim was sent to his address through the 2nd opposite party by the issuing authority on 29/01/2014 from Mumbai. Sri. Kasim had applied for the PAN card through CARVEY Agencies functioning at Arayidathupalam, Kozhikode. When he enquired about the PAN card at the CARVEY office they told that the authorities had sent the same to the addressee through the 2nd opposite party on29/01/2014 itself. When he contacted the office of the 1st opposite party at Kozhikode, he came to know that they have returned the card to the sender on 05/02/2014. Thereafter when he searched the website of the opposite parties it is found that the consignment was reached at the office of the 1st opposite party on 01/02/2014 and instead of delivering the same to the addressee they have returned it to the sender without even intimating the addressee over telephone. The petitioner submitted that the reason stated by the 1st opposite party for returning the consignment was that they have no courier service at Wayanad District.
It is submitted by the petitioner that his father Kasim had purchased a SML ISUZU vehicle for Rs.9,70,000/- from Premier Auto Service Kozhikode on 08/12/2013 for plying as public carrier. For taking permit to that vehicle the PAN card is to be presented before the authorities and for that purpose Sri. Kasim had applied for the PAN card. But due to the said act of the 1st opposite party, he didn’t get the card and as a result he didn’t get permit to that vehicle from the authorities. As the vehicle was purchased availing loan from the financiers, he has to remit the monthly installments without fault. Only by plying the vehicle he can remit the loan installments and due to non-delivery of the PAN card he could not ply the vehicle and is facing much financial difficulties and other hardships. The petitioner alleged that the non-delivery of the PAN card on the part of the 1st opposite party is gross negligence and deficiency in service on their side. Hence this petition is filed to direct the opposite parties to deliver the PAN card to the addressee immediately and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the mental pain, financial loss and other hardships suffered and cost of the proceedings to the petitioner.
The opposite parties received notice issued from this Forum, but they didn’t appear or filed version. Hence they set ex-parte.
The petitioner filed affidavit and produced 5 numbers of documents as evidence on his side and these are marked as Ext.s A1 to A5. Ext. A1 is the copy of PAN application status issued by NSDL to the petitioner to prove that the PAN card has been dispatched to Sri. Kasim on 29/01/2014 through First Flight Couriers Pvt. Ltd. Ext. A2 is the copy of consignment details of the opposite parties which shows the booking date of the consignment as 29/01/2014 from Mumbai to Calicut and the delivery status as Non Service Station, Returned to origin on 05/02/2014. Ext. A3 is the copy of invoice dated 09/12/2013 issued by Premier Auto Services in the name of Sri. Kasim to prove the purchase of the vehicle SML ISUZU for Rs.9,97,000/-. Ext. A4 is the copy of customer proposal No. 1000015233 dated 04/01/2014 issued to Sri. Kasim from India Infoline Finance Ltd. and Ext. A5 is the copy of the customer details and repayment schedule of loan installments issued by the India Infoline Finance Ltd. to Sri. Kasim. Thus the documents A1 to A5 proved the averments of the petitioner as true and correct. The opposite parties have not filed version challenging the averments of the petitioner or produced any documents to rebut the veracity of the documents produced and marked by him. Hence the case of the petitioner stands unchallenged and proved. The petitioner alleged that the non-delivery of PAN card even after giving proper address and phone number of the consignee is deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party and due to this the consignee could not present the PAN card before the authorities for obtaining the vehicle permit and hence he could not ply the vehicle on the road and was unable to remit the vehicle loan correctly. This is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and this caused much financial loss and other hardships to him. Considering the facts of the case and evidence on record, we are also of the opinion that the said act of the opposite parties is deficiency in service on their part, for which they are liable to compensate the petitioner reasonably.
In the result the following order is passed.
The opposite parties are jointly and severally ordered to deliver the PAN card to the addressee KASIM, if possible. They are also ordered to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as compensation for the difficulties suffered and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) as cost of the proceedings to the petitioner within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Dated this the 3rd day of April, 2017
Date of filing: 13/02/2014
SD/-MEMBER SD/-PRESIDENT SD/-MEMBER
APPENDIX
Documents exhibited for the complainant:
A1. Pan application status
A2. Copy of consignment details
A3. Copy of invoice dated 09/12/2013
A4. Copy of customer proposal No. 1000015233
A5. Copy of customer details
Documents exhibited for the opposite party:
Nil
Witness examined for the complainant:
None
Witness examined for the opposite party:
None
Sd/-President
//True copy//
(Forwarded/By Order)
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
