Tamil Nadu

Kanyakumari

CC/79/2013

D.Manoj - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Alankit Aignments Ltd., Nagercoil. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.A.Joseph Ranjeev Da

11 Sep 2014

ORDER

Date of filing: 30 .07.2013

Date of   Order:  11.09.2014

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL                                                                                                                      FORUM, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT AT NAGERCOIL.

 

PRESENT: Thiru.P.Ramalingam,B.A.,B.L.,         President.

                                    Tmt.D.Shakilakumari,B.A.,LLB.,        Member-1.

                                    Tmt.D.Rani,  B.Com.,                            Member-2.

 

                           Thursday  the 11^th    day of  September   2014

 

C.C.NO.79/2013

D. Manoj,

S/O. P.Durairaj,

212, Holy Family Church Road,

Nagercoil Village,

Agasteeswaram Taluk,

Kanyakumari District                                                                             Complainant

                               

                                  - versus -                                     

The Manager,

Alankit Assignments Ltd.,

42B, Upstairs, College Road,

Nagercoil -  1                                                                                  ….Opposite party

 

                

          This complaint came up before us for final hearing on 28.08.2014 in the presence of Thiru.A. Joseph Ranjeev Das, Counsel for complainant and Thiru.B.G. Deepak, Counsel for  opposite party and  after hearing the arguments and  having stood over for consideration till today, this Forum passed the following:

ORDER

P. Ramalingam, President.   

 

1. The  contents  of the complaint filed  by the complainant  in brief are as follows :-              

                 The complainant  decided to have a pan card and for that  complainant approached the opposite party  and the opposite party processed  complainant’s application and  collected all the information for applying  for  a pan card. The opposite party has received  a sum of Rs. 96/- on 21.06.2012. So far the pan card was not  yet received  through the opposite party.  Complainant  repeatedly enquired about the pan card, but received only evasive reply. The opposite party has received  a sum of Rs. 96/- and opposite party has to do service  for processing of the pan card to be issued  to the complainant. On 26.12.2012 complainant approached  the opposite party towards pan card. There is no proper reply. The act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and  unfair trade practice.  The complainant sent a notice  on 03.07.2013. The opposite party sent a false reply  on  05.07.2013.  There is cause of action. So this  complaint is filed  and the  complainant prays for the  following reliefs:- 

1.   Directing the opposite party to pay  a sum of Rs. 96/- towards

Service charges.

2. Directing the  opposite  party to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/-  as       compensation for  deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2. Due notice given to the opposite party.  The  opposite party filed  written version .
3. The  averments of  the written version filed by the  opposite party  in  brief are  as follows

         This complaint is  not maintainable on account of  non-joinder of necessary party.  This opposite party is only a forwarding agency. As a matter of fact  upon receiving the  application for pan cards, this opposite party  always issues an e-generated acknowledgement slip to the applicant which bears the address of the principal i.e. M/S. Income Tax services Unit.  When the application for pan card was filed,  the complainant  was a minor. The delay has  occurred solely due  to the incomplete particulars furnished on behalf of the complainant  by his father  and his non co-operation. Usually pan cards are dispatched  to the communication address given by the applicants.  Having received the advocate notice dated 3.7.2013, this opposite party sent a  reply dated 5.7.2013.  Therefore this  opposite party  was under the impression that the  complainant had received his pan card  As such he is not  entitled  to claim compensation for  alleging gross negligence. There is  no deficiency in service on the part of  opposite party and it is liable to be  dismissed with costs.    

   4.  The complainant and the opposite party  have filed their respective Proof Affidavits and documents.  Ex.A1 to Ex.A4  marked on the side of the complainant and Ex.B1 to  Ex.B3  marked on the side of the opposite party.

5. After perusing of the complaint and the written version  the points for consideration  is:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled for  compensation  as prayed for?

     6.POINT 1

          On perusal of the arguments advanced by both sides, the contents of complaint filed by  complainant, the averments of written version filed by opposite party, and the  contends  of documents filed  on the side  of both parties it is admitted that   the complainant  approached  the opposite party  to get pan card and the opposite party processed  complainant’s application and the opposite party  has received a sum of Rs. 96/- on 21.06.2012.  The complainant   enquired  many more times about the pan card to the opposite party.   The opposite party  said that  the delay has occurred solely due to the incomplete particulars furnished on behalf of the complainant by his father and his non co-operation.  It is  very clear that the opposite party  has failed to arrange for getting  pan card to the complainant.  Now the  complainant received  pan card  from some other source.

             Considering the facts and  circumstances stated above, it is  clearly established that the  act of the opposite party amounts to  deficiency in service.  Hence  this Forum has come to the  conclusion that the  opposite party is  liable  to pay the compensation for the damages caused to the  complainant.  Accordingly the  complaint is allowed.

                In the result,  the complaint is allowed by directing the opposite party  to pay a sum of  Rs. 1,000/-    towards compensation for the  damages caused to the complainant  within one month from the date of this order. No order as to costs.

            Dictated to the Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open forum, this the ^11th     day of September, 2014.

 

 

  (D.Rani)                   (D.Shakilakumari)                                         (P.Ramalingam)                                      

Member-2.                    Member-1.                                                         President.     

 

 

Exhibits filed on the side of complainant:

 

Ex. A1   :  Copy of  acknowledgement  of pan application Form A dated 31.6.2012.

 

Ex. A2   :   Copy of  letter sent by opposite party dated 26.12.2012.

 

Ex. A3  :    Copy of  suit notice  dated  03.07.2013.

 

Ex. A4  :    Copy of reply notice dated 05.07.2013.

 

 

Exhibits filed on the side of  Opposite party:

 

Ex. B1  :   Copy of  acknowledgement  of pan application Form A dated 31.6.2012.

 

Ex.B2  :    Copy of  complainant letter dated 05.12.2012.

 

Ex. B3:    Copy of e-generated pan application form.

 

 

 

(D.Rani)                     (D.Shakilakumari)                                        (P.Ramalingam)                                      

Member-2.                    Member-1.                                                         President.