West Bengal

Siliguri

01/S/2013

DR. NIKITA SAHA, - Complainant(s)

Versus

1) IN-CHARGE - Opp.Party(s)

16 Jun 2015

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE LD. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT S I L I G U R I.

 

CONSUMER CASE NO. : 1/S/2013.                DATED : 16.06.2015.   

             

BEFORE  PRESIDENT              : SRI BISWANATH DE,

                                                              President, D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri.

 

 

                      MEMBER                : SMT. PRATITI  BHATTACHARJEE.

 

COMPLAINANT                 : DR. NIKITA SAHA,  

                                                  W/O Sri Kamal Saha,  

                                                              R/O A.P.C. Sarani, Deshbandhu Para,

                                                              P.O.- Siliguri Town, P.S.- Siliguri,

  Dist.- Darjeeling, PIN – 734 004.

                                                              

O.Ps.             1.                     : IN-CHARGE,   

  Passport Application Collection Centre,

  L/5, Tenzing Norgay Road (Opp. SJDA

  Building), P.O.- Pradhan Nagar, P.S.- Siliguri,   

  Dist.- Darjeeling, PIN – 734 003.   

 

2.                   : REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE,

  4, Brabourne Road,

  Kolkata – 700 001.

 

                                    3.                     : DY. PASSPORT OFFICER,

                                                              3, HUDCO Building,

  Bhikaji Cama Place,

  New Delhi – 110 066. 

                                                           

                                                                                                                                                                  

FOR THE COMPLAINANT         : Sri Milindo Paul, Advocate.

 

 

J U D G E M E N T

 

The complainant’s case is succinctly summarized as follows :-

The complainant filed an application before the Regional Passport Officer and other authority for obtaining a passport.  The complainant submitted all her documents which are required for the issuance of the

 

Contd…..P/2

-:2:-

 

passport, along with the demand draft of Rs.1,000/-.  The complainant filed an application for passport for herself, for her husband, and her minor child.  Complainant waited for a year, but did not get any information.  On 11.04.2011 and 29.08.2012 the complainant sent        e-mails to know their status to the Grievance Cell, but did not receive any information.  The complainant made several correspondences with the OP, but she was not informed with satisfactory explanation for delaying.  OP No.2 informed the complainant that her application was registered on 24.02.2010 and the same was forwarded to SP/DIB.  On 14.06.2010, the police authority submitted an incomplete report because the complainant’s place of birth is at Belgaum, Karnataka.  She came to know from OP No.2 that her case has been closed on 25.11.2011.  Accordingly, the case has been instituted before this Forum for getting redressal that OP may be directed to reopen the file and complete the proceedings for issuance of passport.  The complainant has also prayed compensation for mental harassment and compensation for negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OP respectively and litigation cost. 

The OPs contested the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegations as raised by the complainant. 

It is contended by the OPs that verification of place of birth of the complainant was mandatory and no passport can be processed without the report of the concerned local police authority, wherein complainant was born.  It is further contended that the complainant was requested to attend Lok Adalat at 10 a.m. on 13.11.2011 with all original documents and self attested copies of those documents failing which her case will be closed.  But the complainant did not attend the said Lok Adalat and thereafter the case has been closed.  It is also contended by the OPs that there is no other alternative but to apply new system and to visit the Passport Application Collection Centre (PACC) locally.  In such cases, the

 

Contd…..P/3

-:3:-

 

Regional Passport Officer may consider the case without fees.  Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief and her application is liable to be rejected. 

So, after going through the plaintive of both sides, the point of dispute is that complainant filed an application for passport, but the passport was not issued by the authority concerned OP No.2 for incomplete police verification report as the complainant was born in Karnataka. 

To prove this case complainant has filed the following documents :-

1.       Photocopy of Passport Application Form;

2.       Photocopy of Demand Draft;

3.       Photocopy of receipt docket;

4.       Photocopy of e-mail printout;

5.       Photocopy of notice served under RTI Act, dated 28.07.12, along with postal receipt and A/D card;

6.       Photocopy of website status report;

7.       Photocopy of reply of notice under RTI Act.

 

OPs have filed the following documents :-

1.       The Passport Act, 1967;

2.       The Passport Rules;

3.       G.O. No.10105/JS(PSP)&CPO/2012  dated 5^th June, 2012;

4.       Some rulings.       

 

The complainant also filed affidavit-in-chief like OPs.

At the time of argument, complainant’s ld advocate is absent. 

None appeared for the complainant on the date of argument.

Ld advocate of the OPs is present.  Written Notes on Argument has been filed by the ld advocate of the OPs. 

Ld advocate of the OPs submitted that in case of denial of passport the complainant would have approached under 11 of Passport Act to the

 

Contd…..P/4

-:4:-

 

Appellate Authority concerned.  He also argued that the complainant was asked to come before the Lok Adalat under Passport Act, but the complainant did not avail that opportunity.  Moreover, the complainant did not mention actual place of birth in her application form.  The complainant was born in Karnataka.  OP also advanced argument on the point of Section 16 and other provisions of the judicial law.

In the judgment reported in III 1993 C.P.J. 420, it is held that statutory function performed by statutory authority without consideration no hiring of service involved.  It was discussed by the Hon’ble Judges that “we are clearly of the view that the OP is performing only statutory functions in considering application of the citizens for passport and in issuing the same to them and that the statutory functions performed by him are not for any consideration paid by the citizens.  No contract of service or purchase of goods for consideration is involved in granting passports”, and that the complainant is not a consumer as per Section 2 (1)(d) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

We have perused the evidence and those documents and law laid down in the Passport Act, principles of Consumer Protection Act.  In the light of the above decisions, we are of considered opinion that the complainant’s case is liable to be dismissed because it is not maintainable.  Moreover, the complainant failed to provide her address for verifications for which police would not able to file complete report as is required by the Passport Act.  So, the OPs are not liable for deficiency in service in any way to the complainant. 

Therefore, the case fails.

Hence, it is

                      O R D E R E D

that the Consumer Case No.1/S/2013 is dismissed on contest.   

Let copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.   

 

 

 

-Member-                                                     -President-