State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Passport Officer vs Avtar Singh Gondara on 8 October, 2015
Daily Order FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH. First Appeal No.856 of 2012 Date of Institution: 22.06.2012 Date of Decision : 08.10.2015 1. Passport Officer, Ranjeet Avenue, Amritsar. 2. J.S Sodhi, Passport Officer, Ranjeet Avenue, Amritsar 3. Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh. 4. Ministry of External Affairs, Govt. of India, through Secretary , New Delhi ...Appellants/Opposite Parties no.2 to 5 Versus 1. Avtar Singh Gondara aged about 58 years s/o Gurdev Singh, r/o St No.4, Harindra Nagar, Faridkot. ..Respondent no.1 /Complainant 2. District Passport Officer Collection Office through Deputy Commissioner, Faridkot. ..Respondent no.2/Opposite party no.1 First Appeal against order dated 17.04.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridkot Quorum:- Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.
Shri. Harcharan Singh Guram, Member Present:-
For the appellants : Sh. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate & Sh.Sudhir Nar, Advocate For the respondent no.1 : None For the respondent no.2 : None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J.S KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-
The appellants of this appeal (the opposite parties no.2 to 5 in the complaint) have directed this appeal against the respondent no.1 of this appeal (the complainant in the complaint) and respondent no.2 (the opposite party no.1 in the complaint), challenging order dated 17.04.2012 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Faridkot, accepting the complaint of the complainant by awarding the compensation of Rs.25,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till its realization to the complainant against OP No.2 and 3. The instant appeal has been preferred by the opposite parties no.2 to 5 now appellants in this appeal against the same.
2. The complainant Avtar Singh Gondara has filed the complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OPs on the averments that the complainant was to join his children at Clovis, CA in USA for the last five years. United State Department of State National Visa Centre e-mailed a letter dated 14.10.2011 to complainant, vide NVC Case Number NWD2011576042 with a direction to submit his required documents to that office to pursue his VISA request. National Visa Centre also e-mailed a document cover sheet to complainant with a direction to complete forms and submit required documents and issuing warning that if these documents were not submitted; then the delay of Visa would be caused. The complainant was having a passport no.B5158283 issued by Passport Officer Chandigarh earlier, which expired on 27.05.2011. The complainant applied new passport to Passport Office Amritsar through District Passport Collection Office Faridkot, vide token no.38785/2011 and file no.ASRZ03130111 dated 02.07.2011 was issued. The complainant submitted all the required documents and fee for new passport, but complainant failed to get his new and valid passport, even after a lapse of sufficient time. The complainant checked the status of his passport through website, which indicated that passport would be dispatched to the complainant shortly. After waiting for 7 days, the complainant again checked the status report through website on 29.10.2011, which reiterated the same report. The OPs failed to issue the passport within prescribed time as shown in the website. The complainant hired a taxi and visited the office of Passport Officer Amritsar on 10.10.2011 and was forced to line up in a queue to get information from the enquiry official. It was disclosed to the complainant by enquiry officer that original certificates were required for scrutiny. The complainant again approached the office of Passport Officer Amritsar with request to get the passport, but of no use. The complainant again contacted the concerned official and he was informed that his passport was yet to be processed and he was asked to come after 3.00 PM, when complainant appeared again before the concerned officer, it was transpired that his passport was not prepared on account of wrong report of Chandigarh Passport Office regarding his previous passport. The complainant hired taxi on 17.10.2011 to know about the status of his passport. The complainant visited the office of RPO Chandigarh to know about the status of verification of his old passport on 27.10.2011, 28.10.2011 and 30.10.2011, but of no use. Even the Enquiry Office of Passport Office Amritsar was not aware about the correct stage of processing of application of complainant. There was no networking relation between the OPs and they caused unnecessarly harassment to him. Moreover, verification of old passport was not required, which has been cancelled by the Suvidha Centre, whereas the new passport is to be issued on the basis of fresh police verification of complainant and other antecedents. The complainant has, thus, filed the present complaint praying that the OPs be directed to issue valid passport to the complainant and to pay Rs.1 lac, as compensation for his mental harassment along with interest @ 18% per annum, besides costs of litigation.
3. Upon notice, OP No.1 filed its separate written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant by raising preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act. OP No.1 denied any liability on the part of Sukhmani Society for Citizen Services Faridkot. Any deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 was vehemently denied. It was further averred by OP No.1 that complainant applied for renewal of his passport on 25.05.2011, vide file no.ASRZ03130111 with all necessary documents which were sent to Senior Superintendent of Police Faridkot, vide office letter no.247/C dated 24.05.2011 for police verification and report in this regard was received from the concerned office on 23.06.2011. After receipt of the police verification report, the same was sent to Passport Office Amritsar, vide office letter no.269/PC dated 30.06.2011. Any delay on the part of OP No.1 was denied. OP No.1 controverted other averments of the complainant even on merits and denied any deficiency in service on its part. OP No.1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. OP No.2, 3 and 5 filed their separate written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant by contending that complaint is not maintainable and is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties It was further averred that Regional Passport Officer had been doing statutory duty of the Union of India Ministry of External Affairs New Delhi. The complainant was denied to be consumer of the OPs under the Consumer Protection Act and jurisdiction of the District Forum was questioned. On merits, complaint was resisted by the above OPs by denying any deficiency in service on their part. It was averred that complainant applied for new passport through Suvidha Centre Faridkot on 02.07.2011. After receipt of application for issuance of passport, the case was processed and during the scrutiny of the case, it was observed that photograph of the complainant was pasted on the old passport no.B-5158283 dated 28.05.2011 issued from RPO Chandigarh and photo in the Passport Information System (PISON) on net were not found identical. Letter was sent to RPO Chandigarh on 13.10.2011 to verify the factual position with regard to the photographs of the complainant, which was mandatory on the part of OP No.2 and 3. Reply was received from RPO Chandigarh on 08.011.2011 along with scanned copy of the previous passport of the complainant. On 23.11.2011, the case of the complainant was processed and on 29.11.2011, the passport bearing no. J 7784759 was issued to the complainant through registered letter no.P-9605/11 on 29.11.2011. OPs alleged that they have been performing statutory duty, hence complaint is not maintainable and they prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. The complainant tendered in evidence, his affidavit Ex.C-1 along with copies of documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-11. As against it OP no.1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Mohan Lal ADC Faridkot Ex.R-1. OP No.2 to 5 have tendered in evidence affidavit of J.S Sodhi Passport Officer Amritsar Ex.R-2 and copy of passport file Ex.R-3. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum Faridkot, accepted the complaint of the complainant by directing the OPs to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation to complainant for undue harassment along with interest @ 9% per annum. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum Faridkot, the OPs no.2 to 5 now appellants have preferred this appeal against the same.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as none appeared on behalf of respondents in this appeal.
7. The only point argued by counsel for the appellant in this appeal is that the complainant is not a consumer of the OPs. It was argued that Central Government has delegated the powers to Passport Authorities to issue the passports on behalf of the sovereign State. There is no question of being service provider by the Central Government through Passport Office to the consumers. On the other hand, submission of the complainant is that Passport Authorities are also consumers and reliance of the complainant is on law laid down in "Ved Parkash Vs. Union of India" Original Petition No.78 of 1995, decided on 13.03.1996 by National Commission in this regard. Reliance was also placed on "Regional Passport Officer Banglore Vs. Anuradha Thadipathri Gopinath, reported in III(2008) CPJ 118 (NC) that there is no question of exercising sovereign function by the Passport Authorities. It was further submitted on behalf of the complainant that Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act provides additional remedies and hence complaint is maintainable. It was further argued that the scope of the Consumer Protection Act has been widened on the basis of the judgments of the Apex Court and hence this services are also covered under the definition of the service provider.
8. We find that in Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh held in Regional Passport Officer Vs. Santosh Chauhan", reported in III(2006) CPJ-406-407 while relying upon judgment of Supreme Court in Nrisingha Muran Chakraborty and others vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 1977 SC 1174, this view was taken that passport is a document which by its nature and purpose is a political document for the benefit of its holder, as it recognizes him, as citizen of the country and granted it and is in a nature of request to the another country for their free passage there. That being so, even when the passport is to be issued to a person, he would not be construed as 'consumer' in terms of the provisions of Section 2(i)(d) of the Act, 1986. Even reliance was placed on the judgment of K.K.Kataria vs. Asstt. Regional Passport Officer, reported in 1998 (1) CCC 201, wherein it has been held that passport is not a commodity, which can be purchased or sold for consideration, but it is only in the nature of a permission granted by the sovereign to its citizens to go outside the country. It was held that function of the Central Government required to be performed under the Passport Act could not be equated with the services rendered to the consumer within meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
9. On the basis of the above-referred observations, which are based on the above judgment of the Supreme Court, the complainant cannot derive much benefit from the law laid down by National Commission in "Regional Passport Officer Banglore Vs. Anuradha Thadipathri Gopinath, reported in III(2008) CPJ 118 (NC).
10. Our own State Commission has held in First Appeal No.1085 of 2010 titled as Passport Officer versus Raghbir Singh, decided on 31.01.2014 and in First Appeal No.2099 of 2010 in case titled as Passport Officer, Jalandhar versus Vikas Dugg, decided on 29.04.2014 and in First Appeal No.1076 of 2010 in case titled as Regional Passport Officer Chandigarh and others versus Nirmal Singh Sadhanwalia, decided on 02.12.2013 that a person applying for issuance of a passport or renewal thereof to the Passport Officer, does not fall within the definition of 'consumer' as contained in the Act. National Commission has also held in " Passport Officer, Jaipur, Rajasthan vs. Ajay Bansal", reported in 2015(2) CLT 86 (NC) that issuance of the passport is sovereign function, Passport Office does not fall within the purview of service provider on account of payment of fee for issuance of passport and complaint not maintainable and revision petition was accordingly accepted by National Commission in the above-referred case.
11. In view of above legal proposition and judgment of the Apex Court as discussed above in the case of Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in Regional Passport Officer Vs. Santosh Chauhan", (supra) , we hold that consumer complaint is not maintainable, as brought against the OPs because complainant is not proved to be a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
12. As a result of our above discussion, we accept the appeal of the appellant and set aside the order of the District Forum Faridkot dated 17.04.2012 and resultantly the complaint of the complainant stands dismissed.
13. The appellants have deposited an amount of Rs.12,500/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount with interest, if any, accrued thereon, be refunded by the registry to the appellants by way of crossed cheque/demand draft after 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
14. Arguments in this appeal were heard on 07.10.2015 and the order was reserved. Copies of the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.
15. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(J. S. KLAR) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (H.S.GURAM) MEMBER October 8, 2015 (ravi)