Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/62/2016

V.R.Krishnakumar, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, The First Flight Courier Limited (FFCL), - Opp.Party(s)

In person

19 Jan 2017

ORDER

Filing Date: 02.07.2016

Order Date:19.01.2017

 

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI

 

 

      PRESENT: Sri.M.Ramakrishnaiah, President ,

        Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

 

 

THURSDAY THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JANUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND SEVENTEEN

 

 

 

C.C.No.62/2016

 

 

Between

 

 

1.         V.R.Krishnakumar, B.B.A(Law), B.B.L., & L.L.M.,

S/o. Sundaramayya (Late),

No.88A/59/(N) Thulasingam Street,

Perambur,

Chennai – 600 011. 

 

2.         Smt. Sola Radha, Dip(Electronics)., & B.Tech (Electronic),

            W/o. V.R.Krishnakumar,

            No.27/11/1332, Balaji Nagar,

            Potti Sriramulu District,

            Nellore – 524 002, A.P.                                                       … Complainants.

 

 

 

 

 

And

 

 

1.         The Manager,

            The First Flight Courier Limited (FFCL),

            D.No.15-434, Venkatramapuram,

            Near Vijay Hall Gate,

            Shanti Sweets Lane,

            Potti Sriramulu District,

            Nellore – 524 002.

 

2.         The Senior Manager,

            NSDL e-Governance Infrastructure Limited,

            1^st Floor, Times Tower, Kamala Mills Compound,

            Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel,

            Mumbai – 400 013.

 

3.         The Additional Director of Income Tax (System)-1(1),

            Directorate of Income Tax (Systems), ARA Cente,

            Ground Floor, E-2, Jhandewalan Extension,

            New Delhi – 110 055.                                                          …  Opposite parties.

 

 

 

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 03.01.17 and upon perusing the complaint, written version and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing party-in-person for complainants, and Sri.K.Ramanarayana Reddy, counsel for opposite party No.2, and opposite parties 1 and 3 remained exparte, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-

 

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SRI. M.RAMAKRISHNAIAH, PRESIDENT

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

           

            This complaint is filed under Sections – 11 and 12 of C.P.Act 1986, by the complainants 1 and 2 against the opposite parties 1 to 3 for the following reliefs         1) opposite party No.1 First Flight Couriers Limited, Nellore office is liable to pay compensation of Rs.5,70,000/- to the second complainant, 2) to direct the opposite parties 2 and 3 to take criminal action against the opposite party No.1, 3) to grant compensation of Rs.25,000/- to second complainant for mental agony, torture, loss of peace of mind, and to award Rs.10,000/- towards costs of the litigation.  

            2.  The averments of the complaint in brief are:-  the 2^nd complainant got appointment from a foreign company M/s. Utalim Metals Private Limited (II) Winterthur, Switzerland, as Technical Consultant in Information Technology, to work in South India on a monthly salary of Rs.47,500/-. The employer of the 2^nd complainant asked to furnish PAN Card within 3 months from the date of appointment on 16.12.2013. Therefore, she applied for PAN Card through the           1^st complainant, as such the 1^st complainant remitted a sum of Rs.96/- in favour of   2^nd opposite party, for obtaining PAN Card in favour of 2^nd complainant on 22.12.2013. Opposite party No.2 allotted PAN vide reference No.FLVPS7121D dt:04.02.2014 (vide document dt:27.01.2015). Opposite party No.2 printed PAN Card and dispatched to the address of the 2^nd complainant through opposite party No.1 on 06.02.2014 vide Air Way Bill No.B991Q5854739, but it was not delivered. When    2^nd complainant checked the FFCL (O.P.1) website on 08.05.2014, she came to know that PAN Card was delivered on 10.02.2014. 2^nd opposite party’s website also indicated that PAN Card was delivered to 2^nd complainant on 10.02.2014 through opposite party No.1 at Nellore. 2^nd complainant approached the office of opposite party No.1 at Nellore and asked them to show the proof of delivery of PAN Card, but they refused to show the same. Therefore, the 2^nd complainant intimated to opposite party No.2 about non-delivery of PAN Card by opposite party No.1 and the website tracking shows that the PAN Card was delivered to 2^nd complainant on 10.02.2014.

            3.  On coming to know these incidents, 1^st complainant who is the husband of 2^nd complainant rushed to Nellore by leaving all his works at Chennai, and went to the office of opposite party No.1 along with 2^nd complainant and requested opposite party No.1 to show the proof of delivery of PAN Card, but the office staff of opposite party No.1 brought one carton box and poured on the table, there are some PAN Cards in sealed covers, which were un-delivered to card holders / applicants. 1^st complainant immediately questioned opposite party No.1, as to why they did not deliver the Credit Card (perhaps PAN Card) to the addressee. Opposite party No.1 did not return the PAN Card of 2^nd complainant to opposite parties 2 and 3 nor delivered the same to   2^nd complainant, but gave evasive reply and asked the complainant to come on some other day to trace the PAN Card. On that the complainants 1 and 2 informed opposite party No.1 that they are going to lodge a complaint against opposite party No.1, instead of it opposite party No.1 did not deliver PAN Card to 2^nd complainant. Due to the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1, the 2^nd complainant lost her employment, consequently she sustained monitory loss in a sum of Rs.5,70,000/- that year, as her services were terminated by her employer. Subsequently, the 2^nd opposite party has delivered another PAN Card (fresh PAN Card) to the 2^nd complainant. The opposite party No.1 is responsible for loss of employment of 2^nd complainant, as opposite party No.1 did not deliver PAN Card in time, so as to enable the 2^nd complainant to produce the same before her employer. Hence the complaint.

            4.  Opposite parties 1 and 3 remained exparte.

            5.  Opposite party No.2 alone is the contesting party. Opposite party No.2 filed its written version along with annexures counting in 40 pages. It denied the parawise allegations made in the complaint and further contended that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.2, as it was got printed the PAN Card, as an authorized agent of opposite party No.3 and entrusted the same to opposite party No.1 for delivering the same to 2^nd complainant in time, and when the complainants represented that the PAN Card was not delivered by opposite party No.1, opposite party No.2 has immediately got issued another fresh PAN Card and delivered the same to 2^nd complainant. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.2, and opposite parties 2 and 3 were made as parties unnecessarily to this complaint. That the 2^nd complainant never appeared before this Forum.            1^st complainant is not a consumer, on this ground the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The complainants never made any correspondence with opposite parties 2 and 3, except intimating about non-delivery of PAN Card to 2^nd complainant and therefore they are not liable to pay any compensation to the complainants. As the opposite party No.2 had already delivered fresh PAN Card without collecting any additional charges and the same was received by 2^nd complainant admittedly, the complaint is not maintainable against the opposite parties 2 and 3. The complainant if verified non-delivery of PAN Card in time, opposite party No.2 ought to have provide the fresh PAN Card within time, but the complainants enquired about the status on 08.05.2014, it seems that there is no any urgency for submitting the PAN Card to her employer as alleged. Moreover, the PAN Card is a requirement / statutory obligation irrespective of whether there is a job opportunity or not. Therefore, her failure to adhere to the statutory obligation and consequently connect the same to the loss of job opportunity is completely untenable. Any direction for initiating criminal action against opposite party No.1 by opposite parties 2 and 3 is out of the purview of issues to be determined by this Forum. Moreover, as per the ITD stipulated procedure the monetary penalty is already levied against the courier company opposite party No.1. Hence the matter needs to be dismissed and opposite parties 2 and 3 are to be discharged.

            6.   PAN FLVPS7121D was allotted by I.T Department against the above application on 04.02.2014. The PAN Card was printed by opposite party No.2 and dispatched to the applicant at the communication address mentioned in the application form on 06.02.2014 through First Flight Courier Limited (opposite party No.1) vide AWB No.B991Q5854739. As informed by FFCL (opposite party No.1), PAN Card was delivered on 09.02.2014, a copy of delivery status is submitted in this regard. The 2^nd opposite party has received e-mail from 1^st complainant on 08.05.2014 informing about non-receipt of PAN Card. Immediately, opposite party No.2 had taken-up the matter with opposite party No.1 and levied penalty on opposite party No.1 for furnishing incorrect delivery status without proof of delivery. Thereafter, opposite party No.2 had arranged for re-print of PAN Card for PAN No.FLVPS7121D and dispatched the re-print PAN Card on 22.05.2014 to the applicant at the same address given in the application form through speed post service of Postal Department vide AWB No.EM122131371IN without charging any additional cost from the applicant. This PAN Card was delivered to the applicant and the same is admitted in the complaint itself. Thus the grievance of non-receipt of PAN Card is already resolved. Therefore neither opposite party No.2 nor opposite party No.3 are liable for the deficiency in service on their part. This complaint is filed with malafide intention and prays the Forum to dismiss the complaint with costs.

            7. Complainant and 2^nd opposite party have filed their respective chief affidavits as P.W.1 and R.W.1, and got marked Exs.A1 to A7 on behalf of the complainants and no documents were marked for the opposite party No.2.

            8.  Now the points for consideration are:-

            (i).  Whether the 1^st complainant can prosecute the complaint on behalf of 2^nd

        complainant?

(ii)  Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1 or

       opposite parties 2 and 3?

(iii)  Whether the complainants are entitled to the reliefs sought for?

(iv)   To what relief?

9.  Point No.(i):- to answer this point, the 1^st complainant being the husband of 2^nd complainant, and as the authorized agent of 2^nd complainant, since the                  2^nd complainant has given authorization in favour of 1^st complainant to appear and argue the matter on behalf of 2^nd complainant, the 1^st complainant is entitled to present the case and represent the case on behalf of 2^nd complainant, as contemplated under Rule-2(b) of Consumer Protection Rules 1987. Accordingly this point answered.

10. Point No.(ii):-  the gist of complainants case is that since 2^nd complainant got employment opportunity as Technical Consultant in Information Technology from the foreign company M/s. Utalim Metals Private Limited (II), Winterthur, Switzerland, to work in South India on a monthly salary of Rs.47,500/- and as her employer instructed 2^nd complainant Smt. Sola Radha to furnish her PAN Card within 3 months from the date of appointment on 16.12.2013, the complainants were made to apply for PAN Card by remitting Rs.96/- in favour of opposite party No.2, for obtaining PAN Card in favour of 2^nd complainant on 22.12.2013. The PAN Card was got printed by opposite party No.2 with the consent of opposite party No.3 I.T. Department, and entrusted the same to opposite party No.1 for delivering the same to 2^nd complainant. The status report shows that PAN Card was delivered to 2^nd complainant on 09.02.2014. In fact no such delivery was made by opposite party No.1. The complainants have checked the status of PAN Card by computer system tracking and came to know that PAN Card was delivered to 2^nd complainant and infact PAN Card was not delivered by opposite party No.1. Therefore, it was communicated to 2^nd opposite party about non-delivery of PAN Card. The enquiry made by the opposite party No.2 also reveals that PAN Card was delivered on 09.02.2014 without no proof of delivery, as such they have imposed penalty on opposite party No.1 and got printed fresh PAN Card and delivered the same to 2^nd complainant. The negligence of opposite party No.1 is the root cause of non-delivery of PAN Card intime. In view of the report of 2^nd opposite party that imposing penalty charges on opposite party No.1 shows that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.1, since the 2^nd opposite party has got printed the PAN Card immediately and entrusted to opposite party No.1, for delivery at the first instance and after coming to know that PAN Card was not delivered, they got re-printed another PAN Card and delivered the same to 2^nd complainant. Therefore, the 2^nd opposite party has exercised promptly and got printed a fresh PAN Card and delivered the same to 2^nd complainant. Therefore, under the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 2 and 3.

            11.  The complainant though filed Exs.A1 to A7 on their behalf, they failed to produce the joining report. Ex.A1 dt:16.12.2013 by its translation shows that M/s. Utalim Metals Private Limited (II) Winterthur, Switzerland, willing to appoint Mrs.Sola Radha, as consultant in the field of information technology in India. They fixed consolidated salary of Rs.47,500/- per month (INR) and required to submit Indian Income Tax Permanent Account Number within 3 months without fail. The translation copy was got by the complainant, no authenticity for this translation copy under Ex.A1, the complainant ought to have translated Ex.A1 officially by filing a petition before the Forum, or before any competent authority and got it translated, but it was not done. It appears prima facie that it is only a communication to 2^nd complainant but not an appointment order. Ex.A2 is the proof of depositing Rs.96/- in connection with obtaining PAN Card in favour of 2^nd complainant. Ex.A3 is the shipment track report print-out of opposite party No.1, which shows that consignment was delivered on 10.02.2014. Ex.A4 is also from ‘Utalim Metals Private Limited’ whose translation copy was filed, which runs as follows “Dear Mrs. Sola Radha, we regret to inform you until now you have not send your Indian Income Tax Permanent Account Number. We cannot wait any longer to extend time, we are sorry, because of the above reasons, we cancelling our given appointment letter”, which shows that 2^nd complainant was not joined in service in pursuance of Ex.A1. If she was already joined in the said foreign company, that a communication under Ex.A4 would have spoke that her services were terminated, but they have cancelled their appointment letter. There is lot of difference between canceling of appointment letter and termination of services. Complainants failed to file any proof that the 2^nd complainant has joined in the service and subsequently her services were terminated for non-submission of PAN Card. The 1^st complainant while advancing arguments represented that the 2^nd complainant has joined in service in pursuance of the orders under Ex.A1, worked for 3 years and obtained salary also, but failed to submit any proof of joining service and getting salary for 3 months. Under the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the complainants failed to prove that 2^nd complainant has joined in service in pursuance of the letter under Ex.A1 by filing any joining report. Therefore, the claim of compensation of Rs.5,70,000/- has no basis. Accordingly this point is answered.  

            12.  Point No.(iii):-  in view of our discussion on points 1 and 2, we are of the opinion that the complainants have established that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1, and therefore opposite party No.1 is liable for pay compensation to the 2^nd complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 2 and 3 and the complaint against opposite parties 2 and 3 is dismissed.

            13.  Point No.(iv):- in view of our discussion on points 1 to 3, we are of the opinion that the complainants established that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1 and the 2^nd complainant is entitled to compensation and costs of the litigation and complaint is to be allowed accordingly.

            In the result, complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite party No.1 to pay compensation of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) for non-delivery of PAN Card in time and also to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of the litigation. Opposite party No.1 is further directed to comply with the orders within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the compensation amount of Rs.15,000/- shall carry interest at 9% p.a. from the date of order, till realization. Complaint against opposite parties 2 and 3 is dismissed.

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 19^th day of January, 2017.

 

       Sd/-                                                                                                                      Sd/-                     

Lady Member                                                                                                      President

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant/s.

 

PW-1: V.R. Krishna Kumar (Chief Affidavit filed).                  

                                           

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartY/S.

 

RW-1: Ashwini D. Phenany (Chief Affidavit filed).     

 

             EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s            

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	The appointment letter furnished by the Utalim Metals Private Limited(II), Zweignied, Winterthur, Switzerland to Smt. Sola Radha. Dt: 16.12.2013.
	The Evidence of the document Dt: 22.12.2013 application filed on line towards for furnish PAN Card. The amount paid Rs.96 via Debit card through ICICI bank by the complainant No.1. The payment paid on behalf of complainant No.2, Smt. Sola Radha. Dt:  22.12.2013.
	The first flight courier limited, Nellore document proved about the PAN Card was delivered to the complainant No.2 of Smt. Sola Radha. Booking Dt: 06.02.2014. ConsignmentNo:B991Q5854739.
	The Utalim Metals Private Limited (II), Zweignied, Winterthur, terminated appointment issued to the complainant No.2 of Smt. Sola Radha. Dt: 16.05.2014.
	The evidence of the document Dt: 28.05.2014 of postal cover delivered the PAN card to the same address of Smt. Sola Radha. Dt: 28.05.2014.
	The evidence of the document Dt: 27.01.2015 furnished by the NSDL-e-governance Infrastructure Limited admitted all irregularities/ Malpracties of services deficiency, fraud and cheating admitted by the Government department on part of the respondent No.2 of the First Flight Courier Limited, Nellore. The Document Dt: 16.03.2015.
	Letter from Directorate of Income Tax (Systems) order regarding RTI Act. Dt: 05.05.2015

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s

 

-NIL-

                                                                                                                                         

                                                                                                                                    Sd/-  

                                                                                                                                President

                                     // TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

           Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

  

          

Copies to:-     1.  The complainants.

                        2.  The opposite parties.