National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Passport Officer, Passport Office vs Richa Bhandari on 17 March, 2016
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 120 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 16/10/2014 in Appeal No. 294/2012 of the State Commission Rajasthan) 1. PASSPORT OFFICER, PASSPORT OFFICE J-14, JHALANA, DUNGRI, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. RICHA BHANDARI W/O SH. ANURAG BHANDARI , R/O. 8-A OLD FATAHPURA, UDAIPUR, RAJASTHAN ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER For the Petitioner : NEMO For the Respondent : Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate Amicus Curiae Dated : 17 Mar 2016 ORDER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)
1. The respondent/complainant applied online for the issuance of a passport on 30.01.2009. The said passport was received by him on 02.04.2009. The complainant booked a ticket for travelling to London alongwith her husband, paying a fare of Rs. 28,558/-. When she reached Ahmedabad Airport, it was found by the concerned officers that Barcode had not been printed on the passport of the complainant. As a result, the complainant was not allowed to proceed on her journey. Being aggrieved from the defect in the passport supplied to her, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint impleading the Passport Officer as the sole opposite party in the said complaint.
2. The complaint was resisted by the respondent primarily on the ground that the complainant was not a consumer and the services rendered by him did not fall within the definition of service under the Consumer Protection Act. However, on merits, the reply filed by the respondent did not contain any explanation for the defect in the passport issued to the complainant.
3. The District Forum, vide its order dated 01.05.2012, directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 82,800/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum. A sum of Rs. 1 lac was awarded to her as compensation for the mental agony alongwith Rs. 5,000/- towards legal expenses.
4. Being aggrieved from the order of the District Forum, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 16.10.2014, the State Commission directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as refund charges to the complainant. A sum of Rs. 25,000/- was awarded to her for the other expenditure incurred by her whereas a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was awarded as compensation. Another sum of Rs. 5,000/- was awarded to the complainant towards legal expenses. Being still aggrieved, the petitioner is before us by way of this revision petition.
5. The legal issue raised by the petitioner was referred to a larger Bench vide our order dated 17.11.2015. The following were the questions referred to the larger Bench:
Whether a person, who applies for a passport and to whom a passport is ordered to be issued, is a Consumer as defined in Consumer Protection Act;
Whether the delay in preparation and issue of passport, after the Passport Officer has decided to issue passport to the applicant, or any other deficiency thereafter constitutes defect or deficiency in the services as defined in Section 2(1)(f) and 2(1)(g) respectively of the Consumer Protection Act;
Whether any defect in the document of passport issued to a person would constitute defect or deficiency as defined in Section 2(1)(f) and 2(1)(g) respectively of the Consumer Protection Act.
The larger Bench vide its pronouncement dated 16.03.2016, answered the reference as under:
(i) A person, who applies for a passport and to whom a passport is ordered to be issued, is a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. We make it clear that he will be a consumer only in respect of the activities which the Passport Office or the agency to which such activities are outsourced, undertakes, after the decision of the Passport Officer to issue a passport to the applicant;
(ii) An unjustified delay in preparation, issue, dispatch and delivery of the passport, occurring after the Passport Officer has decided to issue passport to the applicant or any other defect or deficiency in the activities post the decision of the passport officer to issue a passport to the applicant, would constitute defect or deficiency in the service as defined in Section 2(1)(f) and 2(1)(g) respectively of the Consumer Protection Act and a consumer complaint, seeking compensation for such a defect or deficiency is maintainable;
(iii) any defect or deficiency in the document of passport issued to a person would constitute defect or deficiency as defined in Section 2(1)(f) and 2(1)(g) respectively of the Consumer Protection Act and a consumer complaint, seeking compensation for such a defect or deficiency is maintainable.
6. Since the document of passport issued to the complainant was defective as it did not have a Barcode printed on it, the petitioner obviously was deficient in rendering services, post decision of the Passport Officer to issue a passport to the complainant. A person aggrieved on account of such a deficiency can approach a Consumer Forum by way of a complaint. Therefore, the order passed by the fora below cannot be said to be illegal or without jurisdiction.
7. On merits, considering all the facts and circumstances of the case including the mental agony suffered by a person who plans a trip for travelling abroad but is unable to undertake the journey on account of a defect in the passport issued to him and the said defect is discovered when he has made all the arrangements for travelling abroad and has reached the airport incurring substantial expenditure, we find no ground to reduce the compensation awarded by the State Commission to the complainant. This is more so, when the explanation is given for the defect found in the passport document. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. The fee of the amicus curiae be paid as per rules.
......................J V.K. JAIN PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... DR. B.C. GUPTA MEMBER