National Consumer Disputes Redressal
S. Vijayakumar vs Regional Passport Officer on 10 April, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 3322 OF 2009 (Against the Order dated 29/09/2008 in Appeal No. 665/2008 of the State Commission Tamil Nadu) 1. S. VIJAYAKUMAR No.28./8, Chinnakannara Street Mayiladuthurai -609001 Nagai Distt. ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER Regional Passport officer. Trichy. Tamil Nadu -620008 ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER For the Petitioner : For the Petitioner : Mr. V. Giridharan, Authorized Representative For the Respondent : For the Respondents : N E M O Dated : 10 Apr 2015 ORDER D.K. JAIN, J. PRESIDENT The two Complainants before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagapattinam (for short, "the District Forum") in C.C. No.42 of 2007, have preferred this Revision Petition, questioning the correctness and legality of order dated 29.09.2008 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tamil Nadu at Chennai (for short "the State Commission") in First Appeal No. 665 of 2008. By the impugned order, the State Commission has over-turned the order dated 23.11.2007, passed by the District Forum awarding a sum of ₹25,000/- against the Regional Passport Officer, Trichy and its Public Relation Officer, Respondents No.1 and 2 respectively in this Petition as compensation for causing physical and mental harassment to them on account of delay in issue of passport, and has closed the case on the ground that the passport had now been issued to the Complainants. However, while doing so, the State Commission has kept open the question raised by the Respondents with regard to the jurisdiction of the consumer fora to deal with similar complaints.
2. Succinctly put, the material facts are:
First Complainant is the Advisor of Punganur Consumer Protection Council and the second Complainant, an Engineering Graduate, is his son. On 06.06.2007, the second Complainant applied to Nagapattinam District Collector for issue of passport, along with police verification and deposited a sum of ₹1,000/- as passport fee. Since the passport was not received till 04.07.2007, the Complainants contacted Respondent No.2. It is alleged that instead of helping the Complainants in finding out the cause for delay in the issuance of passport, Respondent No.2 misbehaved with them. Alleging deficiency in service on account of delay in the issuance of passport as also dereliction of duty by Respondent No.2 for his arrogance and unlawful attitude, the Complainants filed Complaint seeking a direction to the Respondents to issue passport expeditiously and to pay compensation of ₹1,00,000/- for the mental agony caused to them.
3. On being served with notice, the Respondents chose not to appear before the District Forum and they were accordingly proceeded exparte. However, it appears that during the pendency of the Complaint, the passport was made ready for delivery to Complainant No.2. On consideration of the documents filed by the Complainants, the District Forum accepted the Complaint and issued the aforesaid directions. The appeal preferred by the Passport Officer against the said order having been allowed, the Complainants are before us in this Revision Petition.
4. Short question arising for determination is whether or not, a person applying for issuance of passport under the Passport Act, 1967 is a "consumer" within the meaning of Section 2 (1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act").
5. In so far as this Commission is concerned, the issue is no longer res integra. In a catena of decisions rendered by this Commission, it has been held that issuance of a passport is a statutory function and the Passport Officer cannot be held to be a 'Service Provider' and, therefore, the complaint under the Act for delay in issuing the passport would not be maintainable. In this behalf, it would suffice to make reference to a recent order dated 13.03.2015 passed in Revision Petition No. 3785 of 2013 (Passport Officer Vs. Ajay Bansal), wherein referring to the earlier orders passed by this Commission and also the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Standard Chartered Bank Ltd. Vs. Dr. B.N. Raman - (2006) 5 SCC 727 and Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha - (2009) 8 SCC 483, a co-ordinate Bench of this Commission has also taken the aforestated view.
6. In view of the above, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality warranting our interference in the Revisional jurisdiction. Consequently, the Revision Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Yd/ar ......................J D.K. JAIN PRESIDENT ...................... VINAY KUMAR MEMBER ...................... M. SHREESHA MEMBER