Complaint filed on: 06-02-2023

                                                      Disposed on: 08-06-2023

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TUMAKURU

DATED THIS THE 8^th DAY OF JUNE 2023

PRESENT

SMT.G.T.VIJAYALAKSHMI, B.Com., LLM., PRESIDENT

SRI.KUMARA.N, B.Sc. (Agri), LL.B., MBA., MEMBER

SMT.NIVEDITA RAVISH, B.A., LL.B.(Spl)., LADY MEMBER

Consumer Complaint No.13/2023 

Shanth Kumar T.G.

#15/1, 2^nd Main Road, Behind Jail,

Vinobanagar, Tumakuru-572 101.

(In person)

V/s

1.       Malathi Gaikwad .S, Enrolment Operator,

2.       Billing Operator, Code Opr 11277

          Both are at Karnataka One, Integrated Citizen Service

          Centre, Mahanagara Palike Premises, Tumakuru.

(In persons)

:O R D E R:

SMT.NIVEDITA RAVISH –  LADY MEMBER

            This complaint is filed by the complainant U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the Opposite Parties, to direct the Opposite Party No.1 to pay the refund of extra fee of Rs.50/- taken by the Opposite Parties along with Rs.1,000/- as expenditures incurred for filing the complainant. Further, the complainant prays to direct the opposite party No.2 to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation and apology from the opposite party No.2.

2.       Opposite party No.1 is the enrolment operator(“Hereinafter called as OP No.1)” and Opposite party is the Billing Operator(“Hereinafter called as OP No.2)”  of Karnataka One, Integrated Citizen Service Centre. Mahanagara Palike premises, Tumakuru.

3.       It is the case of the complainant that, the complainant has visited the OPs centre on 6^th January 2023 for the sole purpose of registering his mobile number (bearing no.8660130846) in his Aadhara Card (bearing no.972445212078). The complainant had followed the instructions given by the OP NO.1. Apart from doing the needful the OP No.1 had done Biometric updating without consent of the complainant which was not required to the complainant. The complainant has billed for Rs.100/- while the fee for mobile number updating is Rs.50/-. Further, the billing entries were incorrect as regards the name of the complainant and Aadhar number. The OP No.2 has not corrected the name of and Aadhar number of the complainant even though the complainant requested them for correction and show their negligence in their work. Though the complainant issued a letter for correction and about refund the extra amount paid by the complainant the OPs has not replied for the same. Hence, this complaint.

4.       After service of notice by this Commission, the OP No.1 and 2 were appeared before this Commission and filed their common version.

5.       The OP No.1 and 2 are admitted that, the complainant has visited to the centre of the OPs on 6^th Friday 2023. OP No.1 and 2 are denied the other allegations made by the complainant. The OP No.1 and 2 were submitted that, they have explained all rules, procedures and other recent instruction. The complaint also consented to go ahead to updating the biometric. Further OP No.1 and 2 were submitted that, they have updated the biometric of the complainant as per the recent procedure of Government of India. When the OP No.1 and 2 were updated the Aadhar card of the complainant with the consent of the complainant, the bill was raised for Rs.100/-Which was fixed amount as per the norms. The complainant has raised his objection after the bill was raised and the complainant had not paid Rs.100/-. Which amount was paid only pocket of the OP No.1. Further, OP No.1 and 2 were submitted that, the name of the complainant was being entered but because of complainant’s hue and cry, it was stopped and bill was generated. Further, OP No.1 and 2 were submitted that, they have updated the Aadhar Card of the complainant as per terms of regulations and procedure and not with any modified intention for that, OP No.1 and 2 are prays for the dismissal of the complaint.

6.       The complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and produced 5 documents which are marked as Ex.C1 to Ex.C5. Giving the opportunities, the OP No.1 and 2 were not filed their evidence.

7.       Even sufficient time was granted the OP No.1 and 2 were not turned up to address their arguments. We have heard the arguments of the complainant and the points would arise for determination is as here under.

1. Whether complainant proves the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs?

2. Is complainant entitled to the relief sought for?
8.        Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follow:

Point No.1: Partly Affirmative

Point No.2: as per the final order for

         the below

:R E A S O N S:

Point No.1 and 2 :-

9.       The complainant in person submitted that, the complainant visited the service centre of opposite parties on Friday, 6^th of January 2023.  The OP Nos.1 & 2 were also admitted the same. Further the complainant argued that, he was visited Karnataka One, Integrated Citizen Service

Centre, Mahanagara Palike Premises, Tumakuru for the sole purpose of registering his mobile number (bearing no.8660130846) in the Aadhar Card (bearing no.9724 4521 2078) of the complainant.  The Ex.P5 i.e., AADHAAR ENROLMENT/COREECTION/UPDATE FORM  is reflecting that, the complainant has wants to register his mobile number in his Aadhar Card. Ex.P5 reflecting the mobile number, Aadhar number, name and signature of the complainant. Further the complainant argued that, the OP No.1 started giving the complainant string of instructions which the complainant ardently followed as if it were a part of the procedure. Further the complainant argued that, OP No.1 done biometric updating without the consent of the complainant and billed for Rs.100/-. On perusing the Ex.P5, which is establishes that, the complainant has made the tick mark (  ) in Column Number 2.1 for Biometric up date (photo + Finger print +Iris) and Mobile and the Ex.P5 also signed by the complainant, once the form is signed by the complainant, it considered as he agreed with the contents of the form. Hence according to Ex.P5 it is established that, the complainant given the consent of the Biometric update. The Ex.P/3 and Ex.P4/copy of charge for Aadhar services are establishes that charges for Biometric update with or without Demographic update is Rs.100/-. Hence, we have not found any deficiency in service of OP No.1 regarding that, they have billed for Rs.100/- and regarding update of biometric of the complainant without his consent.  Hence, the complaint against OP No.1 is liable to be dismissed.    

10.   Further, the complainant has argued that, the billing entries were incorrect as regards to name and Aadhar Number. When the complainant asked for the correct bill, the OP No.2 made weird comments and not made the correction in the Bill. To prove the same the complainant has produced the Ex.P2 copy of the receipt given by the OP No.2. Which reflecting the details about Consumer Name and address, Nature of update, Transaction Number, Transaction date, Amount paid, Operator Code, pay mode. On perusing Ex.P2 the name of the complainant entered by the OP No.2 as “Shantha” instead of “Shanth Kumar T.G.” and Aadhar number of complainant mentioned as “9724 4521 2978” instead of “9724 4521 2078”. Though the complainant mentioned his name and Aadhar Number in the Ex.P5/i.e., copy of Aadhar Enrolment/Correction/Update Form, the OP No.2 made wrong entries regarding the name and Aadhar numbers of the complainant. This act of the OP No.2 amounts to deficiency in service of OP No.2.

11.    In para No. 2 of the version the OP No.1 and 2 were submitted that, the complainant has raised the objection soon after the bill was being generated and further the OP No.1 and 2 were submitted that, the bill entries were being made but in the midst of the same the complainant raised objections and allegations and at that point of time, the name of the complainant was being entered but because hue and cry of the complainant entering the name of the complainant was stopped and bill was generated. It is the right of the consumer that to ask about the entry the correct name and other details of the consumer in the receipt or bill, which was violated by the OP No.2   Though the complainant asked for correction of name and Aadhar number, the OP No.2 did not respond to him, which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice of OP No.2.  Hence, the OP No. 2 is liable to pay the compensation to the complainant.

12.   The complainant has prays for compensation of Rs.5000-00. But the complainant has not produced any documents to show that, he is entitled for compensation of Rs.5,000-00. The OP No. 2 was not corrected the name and number of Aadhar Card in the bill. Though the complainant has tell them about to correction and compelled the complainant to approach this Commission.   Hence the OP No.2 is liable to pay the compensation of Rs.1,500/- to the complainant and litigation cost of Rs.2,500/- to the complainant accordingly we pass the following:-

:O R D E R:

The complaint filed by the complainant allowed in part against OP No.2.

The complaint against OP No.1 is dismissed.

It is directed that, the OP No.2 shall liable to pay compensation of Rs.1,500/- and litigation cost of Rs.2,500/- to the complainant within 45 days of receipt/knowledge of this order.

Furnish copy of this order to both parties at free of cost.