State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Regional Pasport Officer, Regional ... vs Sharvani Budi on 8 April, 2022
BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISsION : HYDERABAD.
FA.NO.311/2019
AGAINST ORDERS ÎN CC.NO.486/2013 ON THE FILE OF
DISTRICT CONSUMERCOMMISSION-IL,HYDERABAD
Between:
Regional Passport Officer,
Regional Passport Office,
Ministry of External Affairs,
Door No.8-2-215, Kummarguda,
Secunderabad - 500003,
Andhra Pradesh
(now Telangana State). Appellant/Opposite Party
And
Sharvani Budi,
W/o. Venkata Ramana Budi,
R/o. H.No.1-3-183/40/46/10/A,
Sai Nagar, Gandhi Nagar,
Hyderabad - 5000830.
Respondent/Complainant
Counsel for the Appellant/Opposite Party: M/s.V. Vinod Kumar Counsel for the Respondents/Complainants: Sri K.V.Rao QUORUM: HON'BLE SRI V.V. SESHUBABU, MEMBER (J) -
HON'BLE SMT R.s. RAJESHREE, MEMBER (NJ)-
FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND TWENTY Two (Per Hon'ble HON'BLE SRI V.v. SESHUBABU, Member-Judicial) Order (01). The Appeal is filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Aggrieved by the order of the District Commission -II, Hyderabad in C.C.No.486/2013 dated 30.04.2019 by the Appellant /Opposite Party.
C.c.No.486/2013
in
The Brief averments of the complaint
(02). Sharvani Budi
Smt.
05.05.2011 the complainant
are that on
Party
authorities by paying
applied for Passport with the Opposite on
that even though
Rs.1,100/- under file No.HYD/HO/1279111
applied for
her mother-in-law and husband also
the same day
to the
but no passport was given
passports they were given
through the
to know
complainant; That on enquiries she came
Opposite Party that her application was awaiting for police
have
verification but when she enquired with the police, they stated that 'no verification was called from them, by the received a Opposite Party'; That on 05.07.2012 complainant letter from the opposite party stating that, her application for passport which was pending under old legacy system was closed and she was advised to re-apply for passport in the nearest Passport Seva Kendra and also mentioned, the steps for making such application; That on 05.03.2013 applied for the passport by paying Rs. 1500/- which was the enhanced processing fees by availing services from P.S.K, Ameerpet; That on the same day, she was imposed with a penalty of Rs.1,000/-by the opposite party authorities, on the ground that she suppressed the information for not mentioning her previous application; That on the same day she paid the penalty and finally her passport was issued on 03.04.2013 with a validity period up to 02.04.2023; That due to the in action of the opposite party and their action amounts to deficiency in service, filed the complaint for the reliefs under various heads.
(03). The brief averments of the counter affidavit of opposite party is that, the complaint is not maintainable either on law or on facts.
That as the police verification report was not received for about one year and as new system was introduced by closing the previouss legacy system, a letter was addressed to the complainant on 05.07.2012 informing that, her previous application under legacy system was closed and she was advised to apply for new passport for free of cost within a period of 90 days from 05.07.2012; That as the complainant applied for fresh passport without mentioning the closure of the earlier passport application under legacy system, a penalty of Rs.1,000/- was imposed and after payment of the 3 same her new application was processed and passport was issucd, That there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, that as the passport is a travel document, and as the Central Government is always custodian of the same, the Consumer Protection Act is not applicable; That, there is no relationship of customer and service provider in the case on hand that for the reasons better known to the complainant she applied for fresh passport after a lapse of 90 days, and so, requested to dismiss the complaint.
(04). Having heard both sides, the Commission below allowed the complaint by directing the opposite party to refund Rs.1100/- and Rs.1,000/- paid by the complainant on 05.05.2013 and on 05.03.2013 respectively with interest@ 18% p.a., and further directed to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.10,000/- towards legal expenses. Aggrieved by the said order the present appeal is filed that the following grounds viz.
(1). That the order of the Commission below is not maintainable either on facts or on Law and the order is against probabilities of the case; That the Forum below failed to observe the absence of customer and service provider relationship between the parties to the lis, and the Consumer Protection Act is not applicable to the facts of the case; That the opposite party is a statutory authority discharging the sovereign functions under Passport Act, 1967; As such it cannot be fastened with any liability; That, the letter dated 05.07.2012 now filed by the Appellant/Opposite party will clarify everything to the effect that, the complainant was advised to apply for fresh passport without any costs and within 90 days (but she applied after 90 days or one year from the date of her previous passport application). Therefore, she is not entitled for any reliefs; That, the complainant also made a complaint to the Vigilance Cel1, and it was also ended against her as there was no latches on the part of the opposite party; and that with these grounds and others that, will be urged at the time of arguments, requested to allow the appeal by setting aside the order of the Forum below.
(05). Before the Forum below evidence affidavit of complainant as Pwl was filed and got marked Exs. Al to Al1. The evidence affidavit of Rw1 for the opposite parties, was field and got marked Exs.B1 to B4. Both sides field written arguments and the complainant even filed re-joinder the counter affidavit of the Respondent.
(06). Now the points for determination are:
1. Whether the Consumer Protection Act is not applicable to the facts of the case? If, so, the relationship of customer and service provider is also not there ?
2. Whether the Ex.B1 letter 05.07.2012 is fabricated by the Opposite Party ?
3 Whether the order of the Forum below is not sustainable under Law
4. To what relief?
Heard the arguments on both sides. Basing on the available evidence the above points are answered like here under:
(07). Point Nos.1,2 &3 As all the points are related to each other besides to avoid repetition, taken up together. (08). For the sake of convenience the parties will be addressed as they arrayed in the complaint. The previous application made by the complainant by paying Rs.1100/- is not in dispute. As the passport application of mother-in-law and husband of the complainant though made on the same day of the application of the complainant cannot be taken as yardstick because their applications are for renewals; whereas the application of the complainant is for a fresh passport.
(09).The entire dispute revolves around the Ex.B1 letter dated 05.07.2012 addressed to the complainant by the opposite party as a fabricated document? As per the complainant Ex.B1 is a fabricated document and it is created for the self-serving ends of the opposite party. Admittedly, Ex.A7 was received by the Pw1. A close look at both the documents would reveal certain glaring differences. viz., (1) In Ex.A7 it' is not mentioned that, she can make an application for fresh or re-issue of the passport for free of cOst/gratis.
(2) It is not mentioned in Ex.A7 that she has to apply for fresh passport, basing on the earlier closed application within 90 days from the date of receipt of the letter, or one year from the date of her previous closed application. (3) The above said aspects (1) and (2) are very much present in the Ex.B1.
(4) Steps for applying at Passport Seva Kendra are mentioned in a point wise, with different paragraphs in the Ex.A7 whereas, in Ex.B1 there was no such point with para wise demarcation.
(5) In the Ex.A7 it is advised that, she had to fill-up the passport application form completely, by going into the website www.passportindia gov.in for fresh/re-issue and submit the same form online, generate ARN(Application Receipt Number and then has to visit nearest Passport Seva Kendra for appointment along with ARN Sheet. Such details are not there in the Ex.B1 and there was no advice to view the official website www.passportindia.gov.in etc. (10). Even though Ex.A7 and Ex.B1 are addressed to the complainant with date 05.07.2012, no proof is filed to show that Ex.B1 in fact was dispatched to the complainant. (11). At the time of arguments, when this Commission asked the counsel for appellant regarding availability of any proofs to show the dispatch of Ex.B1 to the complainant, the answer is in negative. It is only stated that, it was sent by the normal post. We are of the view that, even if any letter dispatched in ormal post, a Tappal book ill be maintained or outward registers will be maintained, to prove the dispatch of the letter.
6For the reasons better known to the appellant such documents are not filed to prove that Ex.B1 was dispatched to the complainant.
2). Ex.B2 are the guidelines issued to the Regional Passport Authorities by the Chief Passport Offcer, New Delhi showing how to inform each and every person, whose applications were closed under the legacy system in view of the introduction of new system etc. In view of the discussions made supra guidelines are not there in the Ex.A1 more importantly the two aspects like -
(a) The new application for re-issue of passport for free of cost.
(6) It shall be made within 90 days or 1 year from the date of previous application whichever is later (13). Merely because the appellant/ opposite party failed to file proof of dispatch of Ex.B1 to the complainant, we are of the considered view that, Ex.B1 cannot be branded as a fabricated document, because the letter is inconformity with the guidelines issued under Ex.B2.
(14). As Ex.B1 was not received by the complainant / Pw1 as contended by her from the beginning, one cannot found fault, the complainant for making an application for passport for the second time, as if it was a new one. In such circumstances even though the opposite party authorities imposed a penalty of Rs.1,000/- on the ground of suppression of material fact, it is a harsh step against the complainant since her money paid under the first application is still pending with the passport authorities (15). The appellant counsel relied upon a case of NCDRC in S.Vijay Kumar Vs. Regional Passport Office dated 10.04.2015. In this cited case, it is observed that issuing of passport is a statutory function and the passport officer cannot be held to be a service provider and therefore the complaint under the CP Act could not be maintainable.
(16). The appellant counsel argued that basing on the case relied upon by the Respondent/Complainant in NCDRC the passport officer Vs. Richa Bandari on 17.03.2016 that, the cited case is not applicabie to the fact of the present one, because the passport authority failed to subscribe the signature and due to the same the complainant suffered a lot, whereas no such thing happened in the present case.
(17). It is to be observed that, only due to not furnishing the Ex.B1 to the complainant, she was forced to apply for fresh passport without mentioning the earlier application nurnber. this amounts to deficiency in service, because the guidelines under Ex.B2 goes to show that, all the Regional Passport authorities to inform all the applicants whose application were closed under legacy system, about their right to apply for re issue of passport within 90 days or one year as stated supra, that too without free of cost. As Pw1 happened to naive to the procedures, she applied on the 2nd time as if she is fresh applicant. For these reasons we are of the view that Pw1 is entitled for the refund of the amount of Rs.1,100/- made by her under the 1st application with interest @12% pa., from the date 05.05.2011 till the payment.
(18). Admittedly, her previous application was pending for more than one year for non receipt of Police report. We are of the view that, there shall be mechanism for the passport authorities, to give reminders to the police for non receipt of the report. In the case on hand, except system generated report, showing that, the application is pending ith the police, nothing is forthcoming about any reminders to the police. One has to attach more importance to that aspect, because the complainant said to have approached the police and came to know that they have not received any letter from the passport authorities for verification. The responsibility became more when the complainant said to have approached the opposite authority and informed that, as per the police version they have not received any application about the police verilication asking the antecedents of the complainant. It shows the negligence attitude of the opposite party. (19).Point No.4: Therefore, we are of the view that the complainant has to be compensated with a costs of Rs.10,000/- by this Commission, besides costs of Rs.5,000/- imposed by Commission below.
In the
result, the
appeal is partly allowed and partly
dismissed with the modifications Viz., (. The complainant is entitled for refund Rs.1,000/- which she paid by penalty dated 05.05.2013, and for the refund of Rs.1,100/- on the previous application dated 05.05.2011, and both the payments shall carry interest @ 12% P.a, irom the date of respective payments till the date ot realization.
(i). The complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.5,000/-.
(iii). Cost of Rs.5,000/- imposed by the Commission
below besides costs of
Rs.10,000/- by this Commission.
Time for compliance 30 days from the date of receipt of
order.