Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

497/2008

K.Jeyakumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Integerated Enterpries India Ltd.,& another - Opp.Party(s)

R.Subramanian

14 Dec 2016

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :   01.12.2008

                                                                        Date of Order :   14.12.2016

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU. S. PANDIAN, B.Sc., L.L.M.                       : PRESIDENT            

                 DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

 

C.C.NO. 497/2008

WEDNESDAY THIS  14^TH  DAY OF DECEMBER 2016

 

K.Jayakumar,

No.1, Kamalapuram Colony

Ambattur, Chennai 600 053                                  ..Complainant

             

                                                 Vs

1. The Manager,

Integrated Enterprises (India) Ltd,

No.18/1, Balaiah Avenue, Luz Corner,

Mylapore, Chennai 600 004

 

2. The Manager,

National Securities Depository Ltd,

1^st Floor, Times Tower,

Kamala Mills Compound,

Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel

Mumbai 400 013                                                ..opposite parties

 

Counsel for the Complainant        : M/s R.Subramanian & A.Palaniappan

Counsel for the 1^st opposite party : M/s D.Nagesh Babu

Counsel for the 2^nd opposite party : M/s R.Subramanian & R.Prasad

 

ORDER

THIRU. S. PANDIAN, PRESIDENT

          This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to issue PAN card and to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony and also to pay cost of the complaint.

1.  The averment of the complaint are brief as follows:

        The complainant who was induced by the opposite parties attracted by the 1^st opposite party assurance applied for the PAN card on 30.5.2008. The 1^st opposite party directed the complainant to pay Rs.5/- towards the cost of the application form and in turn the complainant duly paid the same and filled the form and as per the direction enclosed the copy of the ration cards as proof of address. The complainant also paid a consideration of Rs.67/- along with the application form, which was received by the 1^st opposite party on behalf of the second opposite party. The 1^st opposite party issued an acknowledgement under receipt No. 033040300083081.

2.        The complainant filled the application form and duly given his house address as No.1, Kamalapuram Colony, Ambattur, Chennai 600 053, and the telephone number accordingly. The opposite parties promised to issue the PAN card within 15 days from the date of application which will be sent to the applicant’s house address. Though, more than 15 days lapsed the complainant has not received the PAN card, hence without any other alternative, the complainant immediately contacted the 1^st opposite party over phone and asked for, the status of his application. To his surprise and shock the 1^st opposite party informed that the second opposite party has duly issued the PAN to the complainant and his number as AKAPJ3043Q and the card has been duly delivered by courier.

3.             On enquiry of the complaint, the 1^st opposite party replied that the PAN card has been delivered to the complainant through World Wide Couriers Service. The complainant to make personal enquiry asked the 1^st opposite party for the contact, the phone number of the concerned courier service.  But the opposite parties refused to give the same and once again reiterated that the complainants PAN card had been duly served to his house address at No.1, Kamalapuram Colony, Ambattur, Tiruvallur, Tamil Nadu 600 053. But with shear negligence in service, the opposite parties has repeatedly informing the complainant that his PAN card has been delivered to his house address. The aforesaid attitude of the opposite party clearly constitutes deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

4.         Without any other alternative on 25.6.2008 the complaint wrote a letter to the 1^st opposite party informing that he has not received the PAN card and requested them to arrange to get the pan card within a week on receipt of the letter, which was sent to them through Registered post.  Even the 1^st opposite party on a constant and repeated personal visit by the complainant informed him that the same is delivered to the some other address at Thiruvallur District.

5.          Once again the complainant wrote another communication to the 2^nd opposite party on 10.7.2008 through Registered post informing all the plight of the complaint and requested them to take immediate action to follow up and get his PAN card. On receipt of the same the second opposite party sent a reply stating that the card has been delivered though EXPRESSIT to Thiruvallur address, and directed the complainant to apply for the duplicate pan card. On 2.8.2008 the complainant sent a legal notice to the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties, the 2^nd opposite party received the same on the same on 7.8.2008. But the opposite parties have not responded nor send any reply for the same. The aforesaid attitude of the opposite parties clearly constituted deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence this complaint.

6. Written Version of 1^st  opposite party is  in briefly as follows:

        The 1^st opposite party denies all the averments contained in the complaint as false, frivolous and unsustainable either in law or on facts except that those are specifically admitted herein. The 1^st opposite party is admitted that the complainant had visited our office on 30.5.2008 and paid a sum of Rs.72/- (Rupees Seventy Two only) (Rs.5/- towards application money and Rs.67/- towards the processing charges). The application got accepted on 30.5.2008 and we had issued a provisional Receipt on behalf of NSDL vide acknowledgment No.033040300083081.

7.       After the completion of due process within 4 days from the date of acceptance of PAN application from the applicant, in turn, NSDL uploaded the file to ITD and got the PAN card got printed and delivered to applicant’s address on 11.6.2008 by M/s Expressit Courier, Chennai (ie. Within 12 days from the date of acceptance of PAN application from the applicant. The 1^st opposite party has completed his duty perfectly and the 2^nd opposite party had processed the same and the PAN card had been delivered to the complainant’s address within 15 days from the date of submission of the application form and not as alleged by the complainant. There is no deficiency of service on the side of the 1^st opposite party.

8.        The complainant had not come with clean hands. Hence the complaint is liable to dismiss on this ground itself. The 1^st opposite party submits that its Branch office had not received any communication/notice from the complainant as mentioned in his petition. The official Web site of 2^nd opposite party clearly shows that the PAN Card had been delivered to the complainant within 15 days will expose the complainant’s ulterior motive to file this false case. But instead the complainant having received the PAN card had come forward with false complaint for the reasons best known to him will clearly show that the complainant had suppressed the material fact to make a false claim. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

9. Written Version of 2^nd opposite party is  in briefly as follows:

        The 2^nd opposite party denies all the averments contained in the above complaint except those that are specifically admitted herein. The complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of the definition of the expression “consumer” given in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complaint is not maintainable both on facts and on law against the 2^nd opposite party. On application made by the complainant, though the 1^st opposite party, the ITD issued a PAN “AKAPJ3043Q” to the complainant and the PAN card in the name of “K.Jayakumar” was printed and sent to the complainant on June 5, 2008, through Expressit (Courier) to the correspondence address provided by the complainant in his application for issue of a PAN card (Form No.49A) i.e., “K.Jayakumar, at No.1, Kamalapuram Colony, Ambattur, Tiruvallur, TamilNadu 600 053” and the same delivered to the address of the complainant on June 11, 2008. The information regarding the PAN card having been delivered the 2^nd opposite party was promptly put up by the 2^nd opposite party on its website showing the PAN application status.

 10.      In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit along with his evidence and documents Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.7 marked. On the other hand, Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.7 marked on the side of the opposite parties.

11.   At this juncture, the point for the consideration before this Forum is:  

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the 

    Opposite parties as alleged in the complaint?

 

2.  Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief as prayed for?

12. Point No.1

         According to the case of the complainant is that the opposite parties have not completed the process of issuance of the PAN card which applied by him and the same has not been duly delivered to him within the stipulated time as promised by them which leads to deficiency in service and thereby caused mental agony.   On the other hand, both the opposite parties vehemently contended that the allegations made by the complainant is utterly baseless and frivolous in nature and in fact within the stipulated period, the alleged PAN card was duly issued bearing No. “AKAPJ3043Q” and the same have been duly delivered through courier service and therefore there is no deficiency of service on the part of them.

13.        In such circumstances, the duty cast upon the complainant to prove the alleged deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties by means of relevant, cogent and consistent evidence before this Forum. First of all, on careful perusal of the rival submissions put-forth on either side, it is an admitted fact that the complainant submitted the application form for the issuance of PAN card to the opposite party which was duly filled up by him and after due process made by the 1^st opposite party and it has been forwarded to the opposite party in turn the 2^nd opposite party processed the said application and on completion of process the number assigned as  “AKAPJ3043Q”. The Family Card issued by Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Department is marked as Ex.A1 for address proof. The acknowledgement receipt issued by the 1^st opposite party for the submission of application form submitted by the complainant is marked as Ex.A.2.

14.       At the same time on careful perusal of the evidence of the complainant reveals the fact that the PAN card which has been issued by the 2^nd opposite party has not at all been delivered to his house address and therefore on 25.06.2008, the complainant wrote a letter is marked as Ex.A3 and inspite of represented though many phone calls, the 2^nd opposite party has not replied. Hence the complainant again wrote Ex.A.3 letter through RPAD and on receipt of the same for which the Ex.A4 is the Acknowledgment card.  Then the 2^nd opposite party has sent reply letter by stating that, the PAN card has already been delivered through Express it Courier.  The Reply sent by the 2^nd opposite party on 18.7.2008 which is marked as Ex.A.5. Then, the complainant sent a legal notice to 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties on 2.8.2008 which is marked as Ex.A.6 and the acknowledgment card for the receipt of the same is marked as Ex.A.7.

15.          While being so, on going through the evidence of 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties, on receipt of the application form (Ex.B.2) of the complainant along with the Identity proof of one Ration card (Ex.B.3 and Ex.A.1), the 2^nd opposite party after completing the process and immediately issued the acknowledgement (one and the same Ex.B.4 and Ex.A.2), the PAN card has been delivered through Express it Courier and the letter sent by “Express it “courier is marked as Ex.B.5.

16.       From the foregoing evidence adduced on both side and it is learnt that on the application made by the complainant, the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties have done their service properly and the PAN card was printed which was assigned No. “AKAPJ3043Q” and the same has been delivered within the stipulated time through Express it courier.   In order to prove the same, the delivery details furnished by the Express it courier by the 2^nd opposite party  which is marked as Ex.B.5 clearly reveals the fact that the delivery date was on 11.6.2008 at 18.30 hour.  But the person who on received mentioned only as Jayaram instead of the complainant’s name Jayakumar which is the only allegation made by the complainant before this Forum.  The said fact has been clearly proved through Ex.B.6.  Moreover the process followed by the 2^nd opposite party has been clearly elaborated in the Annexure Ex.B.4, which contains the courier airway bill No “AKAPJ3043Q” at the address for communication indicated by the complainant in the application. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the opposite parties 1 and 2 have completed the airway service without any deviation or negligence or any delay in service. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2.

17.          Whereas if for argument sake, it is taken that, as alleged by the complainant, the pan card has not been delivered to him, it might be failure on the part of the concern courier service.  If it is so the said courier service “Express it” courier ought to have been impleaded as a party in the complaint, since he is the competent person to say whom the said courier has been actually delivered but the complainant has failed to do so and thereby the non-adding of the necessary party is fatal to this complaint. 

18.      In the light of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the complainant has moved this Forum without clean hands and also not proved the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties by means of acceptable evidence. Thus the Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

19. Point No.2:-

          As per the view concluded in point No.1, the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed for in the complaint.  Thus the point No.2 is answered accordingly.

         In the result, this complaint is dismissed.  No costs.

Dictated to the Steno-typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this the 14^th day of  December  2016.

 

MEMBER-II                                                                     PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s side documents:

Ex.A1          -            Copy of Family card issued by Civil Supplies and Consumer

                                Protection Department

 

Ex.A.2   30.5.2008  Copy of Acknowledgement receipt issued by the 1^st      

                             Opposite party.

 

Ex.A.3  25.6.2008    Copy of letter by the complainant to the 1^st opposite

                              Party.

 

Ex.A.4  10.07.2008  Copy of letter by the complainant to the 2^nd

                              Opposite party

 

Ex.A.5   18.7.2008   Copy of reply sent by the 2^nd opposite party.

Ex.A.6   2.8.2008            Copy of Legal notice issued by the complainant

Ex.A.7   7.8.2008            Copy of Acknowledgement cards.

 

Opposite parties side documents :

Ex.B.1  18.1.2013 Copy of the delegation of authority

Ex.B.2                  Copy of PAN application form

Ex.B.3                  Copy of ration card

Ex.B.4                   Copy of acknowledgment card

Ex.B.5                   Copy of PAN card

Ex.B.6  07.07.2009 Copy of letter issued by Express it Courier

 

 

 

MEMBER-II                                                                     PRESIDENT.