NATIONAL SECURITIES DEPOSITORY LTD Vs. SHIVARAJ R NELIVIGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) "Petitioner herein was OP -1 and respondent no.2 was OP -2 along with respondent no.1 as the complainant. The complainant is an income tax assessee since 1959. He was issued with a PAN Card with No.ABWPN9154F. He stated that his grandfathers name was Basalingappa but due to oversight his grandfathers name was written as Neelappa in the PAN Card. The full name of his father which should have been Rachappa Basalingappa Nelivigi was wrongly written as Rachappa Neelappa Nelivigi. It needed correction or rectification in the PAN Card. Since OP -1 is the concerned authority to correct the PAN Card and OP -2/Respondent -2 is the authorized signatory or the agent of OP -1, on 9.9.2006 the complainant made an application to OP -1 through OP -2 seeking correction of his grandfathers name in the PAN Card. To clarify his request in the application, the complainant forwarded the documents described in para 5 of his complaint under a letter dated 16.10.2006 but again a further clarification was sought by OP -2. The complainant forwarded the authenticated documents to OP -1 on 18.8.2007. He made the second application on 22.9.2007 accompanied with further documents but OP -1 did not carry out the request of the complainant. In spite of lapse of more than two years since the first application, the OP -1 did not provide the corrected PAN Card to the complainant. It is alleged that in the meantime the accounts of the complainant were frozen by the Stock Holding Corporation of India. The interest earned by him on the investment was blocked and he could not sell or purchase the shares and securities during the period. He also could not invest in mutual funds to save the income tax. He sent a legal notice on 13.12.2008 to call upon the OP -1 to rectify the PAN Card and to pay compensation but without any positive response. He also provided OP -1 with various court documents as well as a certificate of identity by Member of Parliament but OP -1 did not act upon. The complainant, therefore, knocked the doors of the consumer fora by filing a consumer complaint claiming compensation of Rs.2 lakhs towards damages for loss of opportunity in investing, Rs.4076/ - being interest on the above compensation and Rs.134.34 being the fee paid for rectification of the PAN Card besides general damages and legal fees.

(2.) ON being noticed, OP -1 filed his written version and contended that the complainant is not a consumer and the complaint was false, frivolous and malafide. It was further submitted that the complainant failed to forward the copy of the Gazette Notification or a certificate by Gazetted Officer to support the correct name of his grandfather as per his application. Since the documents furnished by the complainant required to be supplemented by either of the two documents which the complainant failed to furnish, OP -1 closed the matter under the first application. OP -1, however, received another application from the complainant through OP -2 on 17.8.2007 for the same relief. Again OP -1 requested the complainant to forward the copy of Gazette Notification or a certificate issued by the Gazetted Officer and since again there was no compliance of the requirement indicated by OP -1, OP -1 closed the matter under the second application as well. The plea taken by the OP -1 was that the certificate of the Member of Parliament could be submitted as proof of identity for minor correction of the grandfathers name of the complainant but the correction wanted by the complainant was a major correction requiring either Gazette Notification or a certificate by the Gazetted Officer. OP -2 in his reply contended that it was only a mediator between the complainant and OP -1 and there was no deficiency on its part and hence it was not liable to pay any compensation and prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

(3.) ON examination of the documents filed and after hearing the parties, the District Forum vide its order dated 29.10.2009 held that OP -1 had failed to render proper service to the complainant and hence was guilty of deficiency of service. OP -2 was held to be only an agent and thus not responsible either in rectifying the PAN Card or delay in returning the PAN Card to the complainant. The order of the District Forum contained the following directions: -