Delhi

North East

CC/135/2021

Ajay Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

UIDAI Head Office - Opp.Party(s)

17 May 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

 Complaint Case No. 135/2021

           

 In the matter of:

 

	Sh. Ajay Kumar S/o Siya Ram Choursiya R/o H.No. A-93/2, Shakti Garden, Meet Nagar, Delhi-110093	Complainant
	Versus
	UIDAI Head Office, Bangla Sahib Road, Behind Kali Mandir, Gole Market, New Delhi -110001	Opposite Party

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

1. This order shall dispose of an application u/s 151 CPC filed by Opposite Party i.e. UIDAI head office through its authorised representative to adjudicate upon the preliminary issue of maintainability of the complaint.
2. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant against the UIDAI head office,Opposite party. The case of the Complainant is that he is resident of Jharkhand having Aadhar Card No. 840848128992. The Complainant requested for updating of his mobile number and residential address in the Aadhar Card bearing request no. 0812/20031/66798 dated 21.06.21 and paid Rs. 100/- regarding the same. The Complainant stated to have called 1947 helpline no. of Opposite Party various times but Opposite Party stated that due to technical issues his data cannot be checked. The Complainant stated that in the meantime his request is cancelled and there is no fault of Complainant. The Complainant had also sent legal notice to Opposite Party dated 23.08.21 through speed post having Ed No. ED374465375IN. The Opposite Party did not given any reply to legal notice. Hence, this shows deficiency on the part of Opposite Party.  
3. The Opposite Party filed written statement to the complaint of the Complainant and the Complainant filed rejoinder and affidavit in his evidence.
4. On 16.01.2023, the counsel for the Opposite Party filed an application under section 151/CPC to adjudicate upon the preliminary issue of maintainability of the complaint.
5. It has been submitted that the Applicant/Opposite Party i.e. UIDAI is a statutory authority established by way of Aadhar Act in order to perform a State function i.e. assigning of Unique Identification no. to the residents of India. It is also submitted that UIDAI does not levy any fee or charge for enrolment of resident into Aadhar Program. However, the registrars of UIDAI are allowed to levy a meagre charge on update of demographic or biometric information already available with UIDAI. The rates for such charges are issued by UIDAI through Official Memorandums. It is further submitted that updating charges levied is fee for expenses which is a nature of tax for services, therefore, the Complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of section2(1)(d)(ii) of consumer Act 1986.
6. We have heard complainant in person as well as the Authorised Representative of the Opposite Party and also perused material on record.
7.  The Complainant argued that he was the consumer under the Consumer Act, 2019 since he had paid Rs. 100/- to the Opposite Party for updating his details in his Aadhar card. The Complainant has filed the present complaint claiming to be a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019    and seeking compensation from the Opposite party i.e. UIDAI alleging deficiency.
8. In this context, we are guided by the order dated 08.01.2015 passed by full bench of Hon’ble NCDRC in bunch of similar petitions and applications wherein people had claimed compensation from the PIO of various public authorities on varying grounds like delayed or unsatisfactory information etc. Hon’ble National Commission has held that “no complaint by a person alleging deficiency in services rendered by the CPIO/PIO is maintainable before a consumer forum.”
9. The applicant/Opposite Party has relied upon the State Consumer Redressal Commission, Punjab decision in UIDAI Vs. Sehejpreet Singh First appeal No.380 of 2019 in support of their contention. Hon’ble state Commission, Chandigarh, Punjab while allowing the appeal of UIDAI observed as follows:-

“11. The only legal question to be determined raised this appeal is, whether the complainant falls under the definition of ‘consumer’ and whether the duties of the UIDAI under the definition of ‘service’ as defined under the Act?

12. this is issue is no more res integra. The issuance of the aadhar Card or making any correction in it by central Government or by any authority empowered under the Aadhar Act,2016, which is sovereign act, which has to be performed by the authorities according to the prescribed rules….

13. Another point of dispute raised by the appellants and to be decided by us is whether services provided by Statutory Authority/ Body comes under C.P. Act or not. There is no doubt that Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) is a statutory authority, established under the provisions of Aadhar Act, 2016 under the ministry of Electronics and Information Technology. The matter is not res integra., the Hon’ble Supreme court has already decided this point in K.K. Kataria Vs. Asstt. Regional passport Office 1998 (1)CCC201 wherein it has been held ; “Passport is not a commodity which can be purchased or sold for consideration but it is only in nature permission granted by sovereign to its citizens to go outside the country. It was further held that the function of central Government, which required to be performed under Passport Act cannot be equated with the definition of Service rendered to the consumer as defined in the Act. In this case, UIDAI is a statutory authority, performing functions similar to Regional Passport officer, who performed the function of the central Government under the Passport Act. As such, the above authority is fully applicable in this case, as the statutory function of the central government is being performed by the UIDAI under Aadhar Act,2016 to empower the residents of India with unique identity and digital platform only for the purpose of “identity proof” free of cost.”

10. In the present case also, the Opposite Party being UIDAI, is a statutory authority, performing functions of assigning of Unique Identification no. to the residents in order to empower them with unique identity which is rendered free of charge. However, the registrars of UIDAI are allowed to levy a meagre charge on updation of demographic or biometric information already available with UIDAI. The rates for such charges are issued by UIDAI through Official Memorandums which cannot be considered as consideration entitling the Complainant to allege deficiency as a consumer under the Consumer Act, 2019.
11. In view of above case laws and discussion, we are of the considered view that the services provided by the UIDAI cannot be equated with the meaning ‘Service’ and Complainant is not a ‘consumer’ under the Consumer Act.
12.  Thus, the present application is allowed. Consequently, the present complaint stands dismissed, being not maintainable.
13. Order announced on 17.05.2023.

            Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

     

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Adarsh Nain)      Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President