Present (1) Nisha Nath Ojha,
District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) President
(2) Smt. Karishma Mandal,
Member
Date of Order : 31.05.2016
Smt. Karishma Mandal
- In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand only ) as compensation.
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 20,000/- ( Rs. Twenty thousand only ) as litigation costs.
- The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-
This case was heard on the point of admission.
The complainant has asserted that after death of her husband she applied for PAN CARD on 04.06.2013 from Religare Securities Ltd., Kidwaipuri, Patna vide annexure – 1.
After some days the complainant received a message on her mobile informing her PAN NUMBER and dispatch date but after that when it could not be delivered to her in time then she pursued the matter and came to know vide annexure – 2 that the PAN CARD has already been dispatched on 20.06.2013.
Thereafter the son of the complainant contacted with opposite party no. 3 repeatedly who confirm that the same instrument is in his possession and will be delivered in a day or two.
It is further case of the complainant that the said instrument i.e. PAN CARD which was dispatched on 20.06.2013 has not been delivered till 19.07.2013.
It is also the case of the complainant that after 19.07.2013 she gathered information through internet and found that as per annexure – 3 the said instrument has already been delivered on 05.07.2013.
The grievance of the complainant is that despite annexure – 3 the said instrument has not been delivered on 15.07.2013 but the same has been delivered on 20.07.2013 as will appear from annexure – 4 and 5.
Heard the learned counsel for the complainant.
Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that from annexure referred above it is clear that opposite parties have made inordinate delay in getting the PAN CARD delivered to him (complainant). It has been further submitted that though the instrument was delivered to the complainant on 20.07.2013 but in annexure – 3 it has been wrongly mentioned that it was delivered on 15.07.2013.
Hence there is serious deficiency on the part of opposite parties.
We have narrated the entire facts in the aforementioned Para.
It is needless to say that the name of opposite party no. 3 against whom there is a specific allegation in Para – 4 of complaint petition, has been deleted from complaint petition as per request of the complainant himself.
The fact that opposite party has wrongly mentioned the date of delivery of the PAN CARD to the complainant as 15.07.2013 while the real fact is that the aforesaid instrument i.e. PAN CARD was delivered on 20.07.2013, may constitute certain offence under the criminal law but such fact will not come under the purview of this Consumer Protection Act.
For the reason stated above we think that this is not a fit case to be admitted and as such this case stands rejected at admission stage itself.
Member President
