State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Passport Officer, Passport Office, ... vs Raghbir Singh on 31 January, 2014
FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1085 of 2010.
Date of Institution: 22.06.2010.
Date of Decision: 31.01.2014.
Passport Officer, Passport Office, Jalandhar.
.....Appellant.
Versus
Raghbir Singh S/o Sh. Sadhu Singh, R/o Qr. No.312-C, Type-3, Rail
Coach Factory, Kapurthala.
...Respondent.
First Appeal against the order dated
22.04.2010 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Jalandhar.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Judicial Member.
Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member.
...................................
Present:- Sh. Munish Goel, Advocate for Sh. D.K. Sharma, Advocate, counsel for the appellant.
Respondent Exparte.
---------------------------------------- INDERJIT KAUSHIK, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
Passport Officer, Passport Office, Jalandhar, appellant/opposite party (In short "the appellant") has filed this appeal against the order dated 22.04.2010 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar (in short "the District Forum").First Appeal No.1085 of 2010 2
2. Facts in brief are that Sh. Raghbir Singh, respondent/ complainant (hereinafter called as "the respondent") filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the appellant, making the assertions that he is Central Govt. employee and is working in Rail Coach Factory, Kapurthala. The respondent applied for passport for himself and his minor son, namely Arvinder Singh and minor daughter, namely Kirandeep Kaur on 16.05.2008. The files were sent through G.P.O., Kapurthala under speed post on 16.05.2008 which were duly received by the office of the appellant and the files numbers were allotted to the respondent and his children as under:-
Complainant : JALW21318108
Arvinder Singh : JALW21318308
Kirandeep Kaur : JALW21318208
3. The respondent expected the passport to be delivered after 90 days, as it is clearly mentioned on the receipts of speed post passport service by the Post Office. The passports were not delivered at the residence of the respondent after 100 days and then, the respondent personally contacted the Inquiry Counter in the Regional Passport Office at Jalandhar and it was told that the passports would be delivered at his residence within 10 days. Again on 03.10.2008, the respondent personally contacted the Passport Officer with complete record and the appellant assured that the passports would be delivered at his residence within seven to ten days.
4. On 21.10.2008, the respondent again approached the office of the appellant with a written request and the appellant marked the application as 'NOC' case and he was asked to come at 4.00 P.M. First Appeal No.1085 of 2010 3 on the same day. The appellant told that his case files could not be traced and are missing from the office. It was told to the respondent that the files would be traced and he would be communicated. The respondent sent his grievance through e-mail to the office of the appellant several times, but of no avail. The respondent is Central Govt. employee and has attached 'No Objection Certificate' obtained from his employer and there was no need of police verification, including his children, who are minor.
5. The respondent again personally visited the office of the appellant, as the marriage of the nephew of the respondent in USA was fixed on 28.11.2008 and the respondent was supposed to attend the same. The sponsorship papers were shown to the officials of the appellant, but they did not bother. The act and conduct of the appellant amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part.
6. It was prayed that the appellant may be directed to issue the passports for the respondent and his children at the earliest and to pay Rs.1.00 lac as compensation for mental agony and harassment.
7. In the written version filed on behalf of the appellant, preliminary objections were taken that the complaint is not maintainable. The appellant is a State and in the exercise of sovereign powers, is issuing the passports on the basis of particulars supplied in the passport application and issuance of passport depends upon scrutiny of the documents supplied in the passport application. The respondent has no right or cause of action to file the complaint. The respondent was supplied Passport No.H-3450443 dated 20.04.2009. He has filed the complaint on behalf of the minors without reflecting the capacity in the title and the complaint is not competent. The respondent himself is guilty of deficiency in service. The passport applied by First Appeal No.1085 of 2010 4 Arvinder Singh and Kirandeep Kaur have not been applied through competent person. Arvinder Singh and Kirandeep Kaur were asked to furnish the original expired passports and passport of their mother, but they have not supplied the same. The respondent is not a consumer.
8. On merits, it was submitted that the respondent is employee of a coach factory which is not a Central Govt. The respondent is himself guilty of non-compliance of the requirements and, as such, the passports could not be issued. The plea of marriage in USA is a made up story and the sponsorship papers do not prove anything. Other similar pleas as taken in preliminary objections were repeated and denying allegations of the complaint, it was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
9. Parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions by way of affidavits and documents.
10. After going through the documents and material placed on file and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum observed that the respondent has received the passport on 14.05.2009, but the purpose of visiting to US had since been frustrated. It was further observed that the plea of not issuing the passports of Arvinder Singh and Kirandeep Kaur is justified as per letters Ex.OP-2 and Ex.OP-3 dated 20.04.2009 vide which they were asked to submit the original expired passport of their mother, duly attested, so as to facilitate the issuance of their passports after due formalities. The complaint was filed on 31.03.2009 and the letters were written on 20.04.2009, but the same were not produced for the reasons best known to the respondent. The complaint was partly allowed and the compensation of Rs.15,000/- was awarded to the respondent qua the inordinate and unjustified delay in issuance of the passport. The First Appeal No.1085 of 2010 5 appellant was also directed to issue passports of Arvinder Singh and Kirandeep Kaur after due formalities and submission of required documents by the respondent.
11. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 22.04.2010, the appellant has come up in appeal.
12. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, perused the record of the learned District Forum and have perused the written arguments submitted on behalf of the appellant.
13. The respondent has not contested the appeal and was proceeded against exparte.
14. The appeal was filed on the grounds that the impugned order passed by the District Forum is against the record and the law and without deciding the preliminary objections that the respondent was not a consumer, the complaint was wrongly allowed. Issuance of passport is not a consumer dispute under the Act. Issuance of the passport by the Central Govt. is a sovereign function and it is not a service. There is no unfair trade practice. Every passport application has to go through internal prescribed security procedure and the issuance of the passport depends upon the checking and inquiry reports. The passport can be refused on valid grounds. The award of compensation is not admissible. The passport was issued on 20.04.2009 within 20 days of the date of complaint before the Forum and prior to the date of appearance i.e. 05.05.2009. There was no evidence on record to prove the date of marriage. The respondent applied by post and not under 'Tatkaal Scheme'. The respondent was not having any passport and there was no question of visa to visit USA to attend the marriage. The order under appeal is not sustainable and the same may be set aside.
First Appeal No.1085 of 2010 6
15. In the written arguments filed on behalf of the appellant, it was submitted that the respondent is not a consumer dispute as defined under the Act. Issuance of passport is not a service hired or availed or agreed to be hired or availed. Issuance of passport depends upon the police verification and other formalities and the issuance or non-issuance of the passport is not a consumer dispute. The order passed by the District Forum is not sustainable and the same may be set aside.
16. We have considered the version as well as written submissions of the appellant and have thoroughly scanned the entire record and other material placed on the file.
17. The respondent applied for the passport for himself and for his children and he filed the present complaint on 31.03.2009 and the passport was issued to him on 20.04.2009. The appellant on the application Ex.OP-1 of Arvinder Singh and Ex.OP-2 of Kirandeep Kaur sought for original expired passports and copy of mother's passport and also issued a letter dated 20.04.2009, asking to submit original expired passport and copy of mother's passport, duly attested, but the same were not submitted and the delay was caused in issuance of passports to the son and daughter of the respondent.
18. The pertinent question to be decided in the present appeal is whether the District Forum or this Commission has the jurisdiction to deal with the matters pertaining to issuance of passports or delay in issuing the passport by the appellant?
19. This Commission in case "Regional Passport Officer, Jalandhar & Anr. Vs. Tarwinderjit Singh", First Appeal No.226 of 2010, decided on 07.05.2013, relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble National Commission in case "Ved Parkash Vs. Union of India" First Appeal No.1085 of 2010 7
Original Petition No.78 of 1995 decided on 13.03.1996 and "Regional Passport Officer Vs. Santosh Chauhan", III (2006) CPJ- 406 of the Hon'ble Haryana State Commission, held in Para-7 (relevant portion) as follows:-
"It becomes very much clear from these two judgments that a person, either applying for the issuance of the passport or renewal thereof to the Passport officer, does not fall within the definition of the consumer as contained in the Act. Therefore, the District Forum could not have entertained and decided the complaint. It committed an illegality while entertaining and deciding the complaint".
20. In view of above discussion as well as the law laid down, the order passed by the District Forum is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside.
21. Accordingly, the appeal is accepted and the impugned order under appeal dated 22.04.2010 passed by the District Forum is set aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.
22. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.7500/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the appellant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
23. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 28.01.2014 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
First Appeal No.1085 of 2010 8
24. The appeal could not be decided within the stipulated timeframe due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(Inderjit Kaushik) Presiding Judicial Member (Jasbir Singh Gill) Member January 31, 2014.
(Gurmeet S)