State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Union Of India Through Passport ... vs Kumari Arpana Dhawan on 23 October, 2018
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 41 / 2018
Union of India
through Passport Officer, Passport Office
Dehradun
...... Appellant / Opposite Party
Versus
Ms. Arpana Dhawan D/o Sh. Girish Dhawan
R/o Alaknanda House, NTD
Almora
...... Respondent / Complainant
Sh. Ashok Dimri, A.D.G.C. (Civil), Dehradun, Learned Counsel for the
Appellant
None for Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.S. Verma, President
Mr. Balveer Prasad, H.J.S., Member
Mrs. Veena Sharma, Member
Dated: 23/10/2018
ORDER
(Per: Justice B.S. Verma, President):
This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against the order dated 03.03.2018 passed by the District Forum, Almora in consumer complaint No. 07 of 2017.
2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the appeal are that the respondent - complainant had got her passport No. K6011895 procured from Passport Office, Dehradun through online application. The said passport was valid till 02.01.2018. The complainant received an employment offer from Dubai. On 09.06.2016, the complainant visited New Delhi airport for undertaking air journey to Dubai, where she was detained by the Immigration Officials on the 2 ground that the passport issued in favour of the complainant did not contain any seal / stamp and, as such, the passport was invalid. The complainant was released by the Immigration Officials after lot of craving. The complainant visited the Passport Office, Dehradun for affixation of seal / stamp on her passport, where she was not co- operated and she was again made to deposit the requisite fee and made to stay at Dehradun for three days and after getting the old passport cancelled, she was issued with a new passport. On account of wrongful act on the part of the passport authority, the complainant could not join her services at Dubai and could not get employment and suffered huge loss. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the passport authority, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Almora.
3. The appellant - opposite party filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that on account of change in policy of the Union of India regarding issuance of passports and for want of details regarding the old passport of the complainant in Passport Office, Dehradun, the seal / stamp could not be affixed on the old passport of the complainant; that the old passport was issued in favour of the complainant on 03.01.2013 and she contacted the Passport Office in the year 2016 for affixation of seal / stamp on the passport; that the complainant was advised to apply afresh for issuance of passport, for which she applied on 16.06.2016 and she was issued with passport No. P1977662 on 23.06.2016; that non-affixation of seal / stamp on the old passport of the complainant was a bonafide mistake and that there is no deficiency in service on their part.
4. The District Forum, after perusal of the record, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 03.03.2018 and directed the appellant - opposite party to pay compensation of 3 Rs. 84,000/- to the respondent - complainant within a period of one month, failing which the appellant - opposite party was also held liable to pay interest @8% p.a. on the above amount from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant has filed the present appeal before this Commission.
5. None appeared on behalf of respondent - complainant inspite of sufficient service through tracking report of the postal department. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the record.
6. It is true that there was error / mistake on the part of the officials of the Passport Office, Dehradun in not affixing the seal / stamp on the passport of the complainant, but it is important to mention here that the old passport was issued in favour of the complainant on 03.01.2013 and she did not take care to thoroughly go through her passport and to see that everything is in order / correct and all the requirements have duly been completed at the end of the Passport Office, Dehradun and there is no discrepancy / shortcoming in her passport. The shortcoming in the passport came to be noticed by the complainant in the month of June, 2016, when she visited New Delhi airport for undertaking air journey to Dubai.
7. In the consumer complaint, the complainant has stated that on account of the wrongful act on the part of the passport authority, she was deprived chance of employment and could not get the job / employment at Dubai. It would not be out of place to mention here that the complainant has not filed any documentary evidence to show that she was going to Dubai in relation to her employment or that she had got job there. Even otherwise, it has been observed by the 4 District Forum in its impugned order that the complainant went to Dubai on 15.07.2016 after getting the new passport. Thus, even if it is taken that the complainant had got the job at Dubai, then also, since the complainant had gone to Dubai on 15.07.2016, it can be presumed / said that she had got the employment there and her chance of getting the employment at Dubai was not ruined. It has come on record that the new passport was issued in favour of the complainant within a short span of one week, as the complainant applied for the passport on 16.06.2016 and she was issued with the passport on 23.06.2016. This goes to show that there was prompt action on the part of the passport authority.
8. So far as non-affixation of seal / stamp on the old passport of the complainant is concerned, the same appears to be a bonafide mistake and there was no malafide on the part of the official concerned. However, the old passport could not be sealed / stamped on account of change in the policy and in place of NIC Legacy System, PSP system came into force / operation. The complainant also can be said to be at fault, as she failed to notice the shortcoming in her passport and slept over the matter for a period of three years and did not take any action for rectification of the mistake occurred in her passport. So far as grant of compensation to the complainant is concerned, it is true that the complainant had to spent some amount in getting her new passport issued, but the facts on record clearly show that the matter of the complainant was taken up on priority basis and she was issued with a new passport within a week and she left for Dubai on 15.07.2016 and in all probability, she got her job there, which shows that her chance of getting the employment at Dubai was not ruined / missed. The District Forum has wrongly held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Passport Office, Dehradun 5 in not getting the passport seal / stamped. We do not find ourselves in agreement with the conclusion drawn by the District Forum.
9. The District Forum has not properly considered the facts and circumstances of the case and has wrongly allowed the consumer complaint per impugned order, which can not legally be sustained and is liable to be set aside. Consequently, the appeal deserves to be allowed.
10. Appeal is allowed. Order impugned dated 03.03.2018 passed by the District Forum is set aside and consumer complaint No. 07 of 2017 is dismissed. The statutory amount of Rs. 42,000/- deposited by the appellant at the time of filing the appeal, be released in its favour. No order as to costs.
(MRS. VEENA SHARMA) (BALVEER PRASAD) (JUSTICE B.S. VERMA) K