(Passed  on - 28^th March,  2019)

Shri. S.P. Muley,  Hon’ble  President  –

1.                     The complainant has made this complaint of deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties for not issuing  PAN Card with her changed name.

2.                     The facts in short are that the OP1 is a Public Ltd Company providing e-governance services to various government departments and OP2 is the Unit/ Division which undertakes activities under the ambit of TAX information Network set up by OP1 for and on behalf of Income Tax Dept. Previously name of the complainant was Manju. Subsequently, she changed her name to Manjulaben in concerned govt. dept. and by publishing her changed name in Official Gazette. Thereafter she applied on line from Nagpur for correction in her name in PAN Card on 3/2/2016. She paid Rs. 107/- as fee to the OPs. The application was accompanied with all necessary documents. As per rules PAN Card should be either issued or rejected with reasons within 30 days from the date of receipt of application. However, the OPs did not take any decision on her application. She then made inquiry on Toll Free Number to know the status of her application, but to no avail. Thereafter, she made several complaints, but PAN Card was not issued to her. Because of want of PAN Card she could not get monetary benefits of her LIC policy. She then served a legal notice on the OPs. The OP1 on behalf of the OP2 replied that her application was still pending and PAN Card would soon be issued, but did not mention time. Hence, she has filed this complaint with prayer to direct the OPs to issue corrected PAN Card, and to pay her compensation Rs. 60,000/-.

3.                     Both the OPs filed reply at Ex.9. The complaint is denied on the count that  the complainant is not their consumer. It is not denied that she had applied for change of her name on the PAN Card along with documents. As per procedure the application was sent to ITD, Nagpur for confirmation of change on 25/2/2016. Same was under process at ITD as her previous PAN application submitted through other service provider was pending for updation in ITD database. On her telephonic requests, status of her application was conveyed to her that upon receipt of response on the current application from ITD, the OP would print PAN Card and dispatch it to her. But she sent legal notice which was duly replied to. On follow up with ITD it was revealed that she had submitted a similar application for change of her name prior to submitting present application through other service provider. That previous application was still pending with ITD. Therefore, unless her previous application is either accepted or rejected by ITD and database is updated, present application through OP1 cannot be processed and this was informed to her. She did not approach ITD nor other service provider for resolving her grievance nor have they been impleaded in the complaint. For these reasons, it is stated, she is not entitled to any compensation. Denying any deficiency in service, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.

4.                     Heard both the counsels. Perused documents, affidavit and notes of argument. Our findings with reasons are as under.

FINDINGS  AND  REASONS

5.                     At the time of argument the counsel for the complainant submitted that during pendency of the complaint, she received her PAN Card with changed name. So, the prayer regarding direction to OPs to issue PAN Card with changed name having been complied does not survive.

6.                     The only question remains to be examined is, whether she is entitled to claim compensation for the delay in issuing corrected PAN Card. The OPs have also raised objection about the status of the complainant as  consumer. In this respect the counsel for the complainant has placed reliance on the judgment in N.S.D. Ltd v/s Shivaraj R. Nelivigi, revision Pet No. 2900 of 2010, decided on 5/1/2012 (NC).  We entirely rely on this judgment since not only the facts and prayers are similar, but the OP1 is also same. It was held that the complainant was consumer of the petitioner NSD Ltd. In the present case also the complainant is the income tax assesses and the OP1 is a service provider to income tax assessee on behalf of ITD. The complainant paid consideration to get the work done by OP1 regarding change of her name in the PAN Card. Thus, the complainant is a consumer and there is a consumer dispute between the parties.

7.                     In the above referred case also during pendency of the revision petition, PAN Card was rectified and issued to the complainant. In present case also PAN Card with changed name of the complainant was issued to her and it has been admitted by her. Besides acknowledgement in that respect is also filed by the OPs.

8.                     So far as liability of the OPs in not issuing correct PAN Card  to her within time, it is submitted by the OPs that her application was pending before ITD and she had earlier made similar application through another agency which was also pending with ITD. Hence, they cannot be held liable for delay. Except bare statement in this respect no documentary material is placed on record. When the application was forwarded to ITD and whether any communication was made with ITD by the OPs on her complaint cannot be ascertained in absence of documents. The complainant has also not able to show that there is time limit of 30 days to take decision on the application as alleged by her.  Therefore,  in the light of above judgment we have no hesitation to hold the OPs are responsible for deficiency in service in not issuing PAN Card with changed name within reasonable time. The complainant, on other hand, could not show that she could not take benefits of the policy for want of PAN Card.

9.                     In view of this and keeping in mind totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we partly allow the complaint to direct the OPs to pay a lumpsum compensation of Rs. 5000/- with litigation cost Rs. 5000/- within 30 days from date of receipt of the order, failing which the OPs should be liable to pay interest @ 9%. Hence, the following order.

ORDER

1.  The complaint is partly allowed.

2.   The OPs, jointly and severally, shall pay compensation of Rs. 5000/- along with cost of Rs. 5000/- within 30 days from receipt of the order, failing which the OPs shall be liable to pay 9% p.a interest from date of complaint till full realization.

3.   Order shall be complied within 30 days from receipt of copy of order.

4.   Copy of order shall be supplied to both the parties, free of cost.