State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Regional Passport Office vs Paramjit Kaur Dhaliwal on 3 April, 2019
FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR-37 A, CHANDIGARH
Misc. Applications No. 579 & 580 of 2019
In/and
First Appeal No.12 of 2019
Date of Institution: 01.04.2019
Date of Decision : 03.04.2019
1. The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, SCO
No.110, 2nd - 4th Floor, Raj Tower, District Shopping Centre,
Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar.
2. Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi
through its Secretary.
Appellants/Opposite parties
Versus
Paramjit Kaur Dhaliwal, aged 54 years, daughter of Naib Singh son of
Mukhtiar Singh (wife of Kahan Singh Dhaliwal), resident of Village
Mansoor Deva, Tehsil Zira, District Ferozepur. .
...........Respondent /complainant
Appeal against order dated
06.09.2018 of District Consumer
Dispures Redressal Forum
Ferozepur.
And
Application for condonation of
delay of 145 days in filing the
appeal.
Quorum:-
Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.
Sh. Rajinder Kumar Goyal, Member Present:-
For the appellants : Sh. Inderesh Goel, Advocate ...................................................
J.S. KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-M.A. No. 579 of 2018 (Delay)
Misc. Applications No.579 & 580 of 2019 In/and 2 First Appeal No.175 of 2019 This application has been filed by the appellants seeking condonation of delay of 145 days in filing the appeal, as the appeal is barred by time of 145 days delay. It is contended in this application, filed by appellant for condonation of delay, that copy of order dated 06.09.2018 of District Forum Ferozepur was dispatched on 08.10.2018, which was received in the office of appellants on 13.10.2018. Thereafter, the file was sent to the office of appellants and then they contacted the counsel to draft and file the present.
After about two rounds of exchange of documents the appeal was filed with a delay of 140 days, which is sought to be neither intentional nor with any ulterior motive.
2. We have heard the counsel for the appellant/applicant on the point of condonation of delay of 140 days in filing the appeal at admission stage of the appeal. There is 140 days delay in filing the instant appeal in this case. Counsel for appellants relied upon law laid down by Hon'ble National Commission in "S. Vijaykumar and Anr. Vs. Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Officer, Trichy and Ors." Reported in Revision Petiton No.3322 of 2009 decided on 29.09.2008, holding that issuance of passport is statutory function, passport officer cannot be held to be a service provide and complaint for delay in issuing passport not maintainable, as complainant does not fall within the definition of "consumer". Counsel for appellants has also relied upon law laid down by this Commission in "Passport Officer, Ranjeet Avenue, Amritsar Vs. Avtar Singh Gondara" reported in First Appeal No.856 of 2012 decided on 08.10.2015 holding that passport is not a commodity, which can be purchased or sold for consideration, but it is only in nature of a permission granted by the Misc. Applications No.579 & 580 of 2019 In/and 3 First Appeal No.175 of 2019 sovereign to its citizens to go outside the country. 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 the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The above-referred authorities are distinguishable from the facts situation of the present case and no advantage can be had therefrom by the appellant, as the above authorities are decided on the merits of the case, but in this case appellants first have to explain the reason due to which delay of 140 took place in filing the appeal.
3. We have examined the matter and we have find that delay is only procedural in nature of moving file from one office to another. National Commission has examined this controversy in National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Akhtar Bano reported in IV (2013) CPJ 617 (NC), wherein it has been held that merely mentioning that file moved from one office to another office cannot constitute a sufficient ground to condone the delay. The matter has also been settled by Apex Court in Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority reported in Consumer Protection Reporter in IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), wherein it was held that Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been enacted for achieving a specific object. The object is the expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes. The very purpose of the Act will be defeated, in case, Court was to entertain highly belated petitions against the order of the Consumer Fora. Stale matters cannot be allowed to be agitated again and again. Law of limitation operates somewhat rigorously. We find that a specified period for filing the appeal has been prescribed in the Consumer Protection Act, being a Special Act Misc. Applications No.579 & 580 of 2019 In/and 4 First Appeal No.175 of 2019 and the very purpose of this Special Act would be defeated by condoning such stale matters.
3. In view of law held by Apex Court and National Commission in above authorities, it is not found a sufficient ground to condone the delay in this case, because a legal right has already vested in other side with the efflux of time in this case, which can be taken away only on proof of bona fide and sufficient ground. Consequently, we do not find any sufficient ground in the application of condonation of delay of 140 days to condone it, as put in by the appellant, and the same is hereby dismissed. Main Appeal
4. Since, the application for condonation of delay has been dismissed, hence the appeal is barred by time and is ordered to be dismissed in limine.
5. Appellants/OPs had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing this appeal. This amount with interest, which accrued thereupon, if any, be remitted by the Registry to respondent No.1/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after expiry of period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order, subject to stay order, if any.
6. Certified copies of the order be communicated to the parties under rules.
(J.S. KLAR) Presiding Judicial Member (Rajinder Kumar Goyal) Misc. Applications No.579 & 580 of 2019 In/and 5 First Appeal No.175 of 2019 Member April 03 2019 DB