National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Henry Lawrence vs Passport Officer, Passport Office & 2 ... on 15 November, 2019
Author: R.K. Agrawal
Bench: R.K. Agrawal
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 4801 OF 2013 (Against the Order dated 29/07/2013 in Appeal No. 788/2012 of the State Commission Kerala) 1. HENRY LAWRENCE MANAGALNATH KRRA-294, KESAVADEV ROAD,POOJAPRA POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURA - 695012 KERALA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. PASSPORT OFFICER, PASSPORT OFFICE & 2 ORS. KAITHAMUKKU THIRUVANANTHAPURA - 695024 KERALA 2. THE PASSPOST OFFICER, PASSPORT OFFICE, WAGLE ESTATE, THANE - 400604 MAHARASHTRA 3. THE PASSPORT OFFICER, PASSPORT APPLICATION RECEIVING OFFICE, NAVI MUMBAI - 400614 MAHARASHTRA ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL,PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. M. SHREESHA,MEMBER For the Petitioner : Petitioner, in person For the Respondent : Mr. T.C. Krishan, Central Govt. Sr. Panel Counsel Dated : 15 Nov 2019 ORDER MRS. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER
1. Challenge in this Revision Petition under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act (in short "the Act") is to the order dated 29.07.2013 in First Appeal No. 788/2012, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kerala (in short "the State Commission"). By the impugned order, the State Commission had dismissed the Appeal preferred by the Revision Petitioner and concurred with the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Delhi (in short, "The District Forum").
2. The District Forum vide order dated 15.11.2011 had allowed the Complaint in part, holding that there was inordinate delay in despatch / delivery of the Passport and awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-. The Passport Office did not challenge this order and only the Complainant had challenged before the State Commission by filing an Appeal before the State Commission against the Passport Office. Hence, the finding of the State Commission as observed by the District Forum has attained finality.
3. The facts in brief are that the Complainant, while serving in Army in Navi Mumbai, applied for a Passport on 28.12.2006 and on enquiry was informed by the third Opposite Party that the Passport would be issued by the second Opposite Party, after receiving the enquiry verification reports from the local and Thiruvananthapuram Police as he did not complete one year service in Navi Mumbai. The third Opposite Party also gave a reference No. bearing SB No. 22253, dated 30.01.2007. It was averred that in May, 2007, the local police visited the Complainant's residence in Navi Mumbai. The Complainant was to retire in the year 2009 and hence wrote a letter to the second Opposite Party requesting them to dispatch his Passport to his permanent home address, as shown in the Application. It was averred that the second Opposite Party had acknowledged this letter on 28.05.2007.
4. It was further averred that the Complainant did not receive the Passport even after he had left Mumbai on 06.06.2007 and thereafter in July, 2007 after visiting the official web site, he came to know that the Passport was despatched on 21.06.2007 vide postal receipt No. 3348. As the Passport did not reach the Complainant even after a month, he sent several reminders but there was no response. Thereafter, he took up the matter with the Chief Passport Officer, New Delhi, on 29.08.2007 and also represented the matter before the Union Ministry on 14.11.2007. Subsequently, the second Opposite Party informed the Complainant vide email dated 23.11.2007 that the Passport was despatched to the first Opposite Party and the Complainant may contact the first Opposite Party. On enquiry, the Complainant was told that the Passport had been received by the first Opposite Party and would be soon despatched to him. The Complainant waited for a month, but still did not receive his Passport. Hence, on 08.02.2008 and 18.02.2008 the Complainant sent emails to the first Opposite Party stating the situation and requesting him to dispatch the Passport at the earliest, to his permanent home address. In the meantime, the first Opposite Party vide a letter dated 11.02.2008 requested the Complainant to furnish two personal particular forms and proof of present address. The Complainant stated that in the absence of adequate information and the forms not having been enclosed by the first Opposite party, furnished attested copies of proof of address, vide letter dated 28.03.2009. Once again, there was no response and he again wrote to the Chief Passport Officer and ran from pillar to post and also approached the Online Portal - Online Grievance Redressal Mechanism.
5. It is pleaded that the first Opposite Party wrote to the Complainant to furnish the personal particular forms and the address proof but did not send the Passport. Vexed with their attitude, the Complainant wrote to the first Opposite Party on 30.04.2009 for a copy of this so-called personal particular forms, but there was no response. In the normal course, the Passport should be issued within one month and it is over 30 months. Hence the Complainant approached the District Forum seeking direction to the second Opposite Party to deliver to the Complainant the Passport, without any delay to the same permanent address which is stated in the application form, together with compensation of Rs.20,000/- and cost of Rs.5,000/-.
6. The first Opposite party filed their written version stating that the Passport No. G-3364224, dated 14.06.2007 was despatched to the Complainant's address at Navi Mumbai but was undelivered since the applicant had already left the address. It was informed that the Complainant had changed the address to Tiruvananthapuram and hence the Passport was sent to the first Opposite Party, in November. Certain procedures including further enquiries and police verification have to be followed in accordance with the Indian Passport Act and connected rules in force. Hence the Complainant was requested to furnish two copies of duly filled-in personal particular forms to enable the first Opposite party to send the same for the verification by the state police in Kerala. The processing of applications is done in accordance with the seniority and no time limit can be fixed. In view of this fact, necessary formalities and the period required in this regard varying from Passport Office to Passport Office depends on the work load. It is also averred that the first Opposite party had also sent letters dated 08.04.2008, 18.02.2009 and 24.03.2009 requesting the Complainant to expedite the personal particulars which can be downloaded from the website or obtained by purchasing for Rs. 10/-. The Complainant did not adhere to the same and hence the Passport could not be delivered.
7. It is also averred that the Complainant is not a 'consumer' since the functioning of the Passport Office does not fall under the category of 'service'.
8. The District Forum allowed the Complaint, directing the second Opposite Party to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- along with costs of Rs.2,000/- which finding was concurred by the State Commission and imposed costs of Rs.10,000/- on the Complainant for filing a frivolous appeal.
9. Heard both sides at length. At the outset, we address to ourselves to the question, whether the Complainant is a 'consumer'?. A larger Bench of this Commission in RP 120 of 2015 has addressed to the following issues :-
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.
and held as follows :
(1) 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;
(2) 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;
(3) 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.
10. After the Passport is ordered to be issued, an unjustified delay in preparation, issue/despatch and delivery of the passport, occurring after the Passport Officer has decided to issue the Passport to the Applicant or any other defect or deficiency in the activities post decision of the Passport Officer to issue the Passport to the Applicant, would constitute a defect or deficiency of service. Hence, the Complainant in the instant case, whose main grievance is with respect to the delay in despatch of the Passport, after admittedly the Passport Officer has decided to issue the Passport, is a 'consumer', as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the C.P. Act, and as observed in the afore-noted judgment.
11. Now we address to ourselves, whether, there is any deficiency on behalf of the Passport Officer.
12. After hearing the arguments from both sides and on perusal of the record it is seen that the Passport Department had repeatedly asked the Complainant vide letters marked as Exhibits D1 to D4, requesting the Complainant to send the personal particular forms together with the address proof as he had shifted from Navi Mumbai to Thiruvananthapuram, but the Complainant did not send the same as the email did not have the format. Learned counsel appearing for the Passport Office vehemently contended that the details of procuring the personal particular forms is available on the website and can also be purchased by paying an amount of Rs.10/- and that as per the procedure for processing of Passport Applications and Issue of Passports, Clause 23, dealing with delivery/dispatch of Passport clearly stipulates that "Passport is to be delivered to the addressee only and not to be redirected".
13. It is observed that the District Forum had allowed the Complaint in part, holding that there was inordinate delay in dispatch/delivery of the Passport and awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-. The Passport Office did not challenge this order and only the Complainant had challenged before the State Commission by filing an Appeal before the State Commission against the Passport Office. Hence, the finding of the State Commission as observed by the District Forum, has attained finality.
14. Be that as it may, we are of the considered view that there was contributory negligence on behalf of the Complainant in not sending the personal particular forms. However, the Complainant had sought for dispatch of the Passport to his permanent Home address given in the Application Form and from the dates given in the written version, there appears to be some delay by the Passport Office as the police verification report was completed on 28.05.2007 and the Passport was despatched to the Navi Mumbai address on 27.06.2007, but it was returned 'undelivered' to the Passport Office and it was further forwarded to the first Opposite Party only after almost five months' in the last week of November, 2007 and only thereafter, the question of personal particular forms arose. Having regard to the fact that there was some delay and also that the District Forum has awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/- for the deficiency of service on behalf of the second Opposite Party, which finding was not challenged by the second Opposite Party, coupled with the fact that this amount of Rs.10,000/- was already paid to the Complainant, we are of the considered view that this Revision Petition may be allowed only to the limited extent of holding that there was some delay subsequent to the return of the Passport to the first Opposite Party. The Revision Petition is allowed to this extent and we set aside the costs imposed by the State Commission.
......................J R.K. AGRAWAL PRESIDENT ...................... M. SHREESHA MEMBER