State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Passport Officer vs Vikas Dugg on 29 April, 2014
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR-37A, CHANDIGARH
FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2099 of 2010
Date of Institution: 14.12.2010
Date of Decision: 29.04.2014
Passport Office, Passport Office, Jalandhar.
.....Appellant/Opposite Party
VERSUS
Vikas Dugg s/o Parmjit Dugg r/o VPO Nussi District, Jalandhar.
.....Respondent/Complainant
FIRST APPEAL NO. 679 of 2011
Date of Institution: 21.04.2011
Date of Decision: 29.04.2014
Vikas Dugg S/o Sh.Paramjit, resident of Village & P.O. Nussi,
District Jalandhar through his power of attorney Sh.Paramjit.
.....Appellant/Complainant
VERSUS
The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, Jalandhar.
.....Respondent/Opposite Party
First Appeals against the order
dated 25.10.2010 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Jalandhar.
Quorum:
Sh.Baldev Singh Sekhon, Presiding Member
Sh.Jasbir Singh Gill, Member Present in First Appeal No.2099 of 2010:
For the appellant : Sh.Munish Goel, Advocate for Sh.D.K.Sharma, Advocate For the respondent : None First Appeal No.2099 of 2010 Page 2 of 9 & First Appeal No.679 of 2011 BALDEV SINGH SEKHON, PRESIDING MEMBER This order shall dispose of above referred two appeals which have been preferred against the same impugned order dated 25.10.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar (in short "District Forum"), vide which the complaint filed by Vikas Dugg, complainant was partly accepted and the opposite party was directed to pay Rs.7,000/- to the complainant as compensation and costs of litigation.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant applied for his passport with the opposite party under the Tatkal Scheme on 30.7.2009, vide receipt No.455485 and file No.P038017 was allotted to him. It was averred that the police verification report was submitted with the opposite party alongwith fee of Rs.1,500/- on 4.8.2009 by him. It was assured by the officials of the opposite party that under the Tatkal Scheme, his passport would be issued to him within a period of seven days, but he did not get the same within seven days inspite of the fact that he deposited over and above the normal fee for issuance of the passport. It was alleged that very purpose of applying the passport under the Tatkal Scheme stood defeated. In fact, same was delivered after a gap of two months and ten days i.e. on 10.10.2009 in the routine manner inspite of the fact that police verification report was submitted by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar on 30.8.2009. He was to go to Toronto/Canada for his further study but due to late delivery of the passport by the opposite parties, his valuable year was lost and he could not go to Toronto in the year 2009. It was, therefore, alleged First Appeal No.2099 of 2010 Page 3 of 9 & First Appeal No.679 of 2011 that the services provided by the opposite party was deficient in nature against which he was entitled to the compensation and other relieves. Alleging deficiency in service, the complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum seeking directions to the opposite party to pay him Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for harassment besides refund of Rs.1,500/-.
3. The opposite party controverted the allegations and resisted the complaint. It was admitted that the complainant applied for the passport under the Tatkal Scheme on 3.8.2009 and deposited Rs.1,500/- on 30.7.2009 for consideration of his application under the scheme. It was submitted that the form attached with the application was sent to police for verification of his antecedents, whereas the deposit of fee under the Tatkal Scheme, was time specific for the purpose of fee only. The issue of passport under any scheme whether Tatkal or otherwise is always subject to usual checks and scrutiny of the application and documents attached with it. There was no categorical undertaking in regard to issue of passport and there was not any deficiency in service on its part in issuing passport. The complainant had already received the passport on 2.1.2010. It was further pleaded that the opposite party is a 'State' and state, in exercise of sovereign function, is issuing passports and does not provide any services. So, the complainant is neither 'consumer' nor issuing of passport is a 'consumer dispute'. It was further stated that the photographs on the V.C. did not match with the one pasted on the passport application. Hence, fresh police report verification report with photo of the Passport Application was necessary which was not First Appeal No.2099 of 2010 Page 4 of 9 & First Appeal No.679 of 2011 submitted and the issue of passport on the basis of police verification report for the Tatkal Scheme could not be considered. However, passport was issued after the receipt of the police report on reviving the case. It was done at the periodical intervals by the competent authority by dispensing the production of fresh verification certificate as was demanded earlier. This was done on the personal satisfaction of the competent authority. No complaint or claim for damages lies against the opposite party under Section 16 of the Passport Act which covers both omissions and commissions of the passport authorities in issuing passport.
4. The parties led their evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5. The learned District Forum, after going through the pleadings of the parties and evidence on the record, partly allowed the complaint in the aforesaid terms.
6. Aggrieved by the order, the opposite party has preferred First Appeal No.2099 of 2010 on the ground that the District Forum, without deciding the preliminary objection to the effect that the complainant was neither consumer nor the issue or non-issue of passport to him was a consumer dispute as per Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short "the Act"), held the opposite party deficient in service and wrongly allowed the complaint. It was further submitted that every passport application has to go through prescribed internal security procedures as well as were required from security agencies such as police and CID. The Passport Act also provides for refusal/impounding/revocation and appeal procedures First Appeal No.2099 of 2010 Page 5 of 9 & First Appeal No.679 of 2011 under Sections 6, 10 and 11 of the Act. The opposite party never ensured that passport will certainly be made available under all circumstances. The presence of any adverse feature would necessitate the refusal of the issue of passport under the Passport Act, 1967. Acceptance of the appeal and setting aside of the impugned order was prayed.
7. The complainant has also preferred an appeal (First Appeal No.679 of 2011) against the said impugned order of the District Forum for modification of the order and enhancement of compensation.
8. We have thoroughly gone through the pleadings of the parties and have carefully perused the evidence on record.
9. As per the grounds of appeal (First Appeal No.2099 of 2010), the issuance of the passport by the Central Government or by any authority empowered under the Passport Act is a sovereign act, which has to be performed by the authorities according to rules and that the dispute raised by the complainant in the complaint does not constitute a consumer dispute and he does not fall under the definition of 'consumer' as contained in Section 2(1)(d) of the Act.
10. The complainant has contended that a correct finding was recorded by the District Forum by placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission reported in III (2008) CPJ 118 (NC) (Regional Passport Officer, Bangalore v. Anuradha Thadipathri Gopinath) that the issuance of passport by the authority is a statutory duty and not the performance of a sovereign act and that any non-action on the part of the Passport Officer to issue a passport First Appeal No.2099 of 2010 Page 6 of 9 & First Appeal No.679 of 2011 amounts to deficiency in service. The complainant does fall under the definition of 'consumer' and the dispute raised by him in the complaint is a 'consumer dispute'.
11. It is pertinent to note that the averments made in the complaint by the complainant about the non-issuance of the passport immediately were never denied by the opposite parties in their written reply. In fact, they tried to take up the plea that there are number of considerations to be taken into account for issuance of the passport as per the provisions of the Passport Act, 1967 and that after the Passport Officer was duly satisfied that the complainant was entitled to the passport, the same was issued. "Consumer dispute" is defined in Section 2(1)(e) of the Act and means a dispute where the person against whom a complaint has been made, denies or disputes the allegations contained in the complaint. According to Section 13(1)(b) of the Act, where the opposite party on the receipt of a complaint referred to him under clause (a) denies or disputes the allegations contained in the complaint, the District Forum shall proceed to settle the consumer dispute in the manner specified in clauses (c) to (g). As the opposite parties did not deny or dispute the averments as made in the complaint, so there was no necessity for the District Forum to call upon the complainant to produce any evidence and the only question to be decided was, whether the complainant falls under the definition of 'consumer' as contained in Section 2(1)(d) of the Act?
12. For deciding that question in favour of the complainant, the District Forum relied upon Anuradha Thadipathri Gopinath's case (supra). It was held therein that the issuance or non-issuance of First Appeal No.2099 of 2010 Page 7 of 9 & First Appeal No.679 of 2011 passport may be a statutory duty and may not be a 'consumer dispute' but delay in issuing passport, would be deficiency in service on the part of the concerned Officer as defined under Section 2(1)(g) of the Act.
13. The facts of the present case are different and it is a case of delay in the issuance of the passport itself. Our attention has not been brought to any such provision of Passport Act or any other Act, which provides for any time for the issuance of passport. The passport is very important document and as per the provisions of the said Act, is to be issued by the Passport Officer after satisfying himself about a number of facts and for verifying all those facts there is bound to be some delay. Moreover, as per Section 17 of that Act, a passport at all times remains the property of the Central Government. So, no one can claim it as of right.
14. Like the present case in Ved Parkash v. Union of India (Original Petition No.78 of 1995 decided by the Hon'ble National Commission on 13.3.1996), the grievance was put forward by the complainant in respect of the delay in the renewal of the passport. It was held by the Hon'ble National Commission that the same does not constitute a 'consumer dispute' which can be validly entertained and adjudicated by the Commission under the Act. Similarly, in Regional Passport Officer v. Santosh Chauhan [III (2006) CPJ 406] there was delay in issuing the passport and in the complaint the grievance was projected that the same amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the Passport Officer. After discussing the case law on the subject, it was held by the Haryana State Commission that the complainant First Appeal No.2099 of 2010 Page 8 of 9 & First Appeal No.679 of 2011 had no right to invoke the jurisdiction of the District Forum seeking direction to the opposite party to issue passport to him and other reliefs as he cannot be said to be the consumer under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. It has already been held by this Commission while deciding FA No.226 of 2010 (Regional Passport Officer and another v. Tarwinderjit Singh), vide order dated May 07, 2013 that a person either applying for the issuance of the passport or renewal thereof to the Passport Officer does not fall under the definition of the consumer as contained in the Act.
15. In view of all these judgments and keeping in view the averments made in the complaint, we conclude that the complainant does not fall within the definition of 'consumer' as contained under the Act. Therefore, the District Forum could not have entertained and decided the same. It committed an illegality while entertaining and passing the impugned order in favour of the complainant.
16. Accordingly, the appeal of the opposite party (First Appeal No.2099 of 2010) is accepted and the impugned order of the District Forum is set aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed.
17. For the reasons stated above, First Appeal No.679 of 2011, filed by the complainant for enhancement of the compensation is dismissed. No order as to costs.
18. The amount of Rs.3,500/- deposited by the opposite party in First Appeal No.2099 of 2010 with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal alongwith interest, which has accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to opposite party, by way of a crossed First Appeal No.2099 of 2010 Page 9 of 9 & First Appeal No.679 of 2011 cheque/demand draft, after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum.
19. The arguments in these appeals were heard on 16.4.2014 and the orders were reserved. Now, the orders be communicated to the parties.
20. The appeals could not be decided within the statutory period because of the heavy pendency of the court cases.
21. Copy of this order be placed in First Appeal No.679 of 2011 (Vikas Dugg V/s The Regional Passport Officer).
(BALDEV SINGH SEKHON) PRESIDING MEMBER (JASBIR SINGH GILLE) MEMBER April 29, 2014 VINAY