Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/132/2024

REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER AUTHORITY - Complainant(s)

Versus

ANKIT SINGLA - Opp.Party(s)

INDRESH GOEL

11 Jun 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	:	132 of 2024
Date of Institution	:	20.03.2024
Date of Decision	:	11.06.2024

 

 

 

 

 

1]      The Regional Passport Authority, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its Regional Passport Officer.

2]      Passport Seva Kendra, Plot No.50, Industrial Area, Phase 2, Chandigarh.

…..Appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 & 2.

 

Versus

 

1]      Ankit Singla son of Late Sh. Mahavir Pradad, resident of H.No.160-B, Society Metro Town, Peer Muchalla, Dhakoli, Zirakpur, District Mohali – 140603.

…Respondent/Complainant.

2]      Indian Postal office, Sector 8, Panchkula, Haryana through its Chief Post Master General.

...Respondent/Opposite Party No.3.

 

BEFORE:   JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                        MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

ARGUED BY :-  

Sh. Indresh Goel, Advocate for the appellants.

Sh. Chinmay Gupta, Public Relation Inspector (P) for respondent No.2.

Respondent No.1 exparte vide order dated 07.06.2024.

 

PER  RAJESH  K. ARYA, MEMBER

                   Instant appeal has been filed by opposite parties No.1 & 2 (appellants herein) against order dated 04.10.2023 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short ‘District Commission), vide which, consumer complaint No.190 of 2022 filed by respondent No.1/complainant has been partly allowed against the appellants directing them to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- to respondent No.1/complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment besides awarding Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation. The order has been directed to be complied with within a period of thirty days from the receipt of its certified copy, failing which, the amount of compensation is to entail interest @12% p.a. from the date of the order till realization. However, the complaint has been dismissed against opposite party No.3, the postal authority, (respondent No.3 herein).

2]                The case of the complainant (respondent No.1 herein) before the District Commission was that his passport expired on 10.07.2018 and subsequently, he applied for a passport renewal under application number CH4074456498819, which was acknowledged as documented in Annexure C-2. The complainant, who operates a web design and development company, sought the renewal to expand his IT business and planned to visit Australia to meet his brother's family and explore potential business opportunities. The trip, along with his mother, was scheduled for January 2020. On 07.01.2020, the complainant received an email from opposite party No.1, notifying him that the passport had been dispatched on 06.01.2020, bearing passport number U6505348, file number CH4074456498819 and tracking number PP844769068IN (Annexure C-3). However, despite multiple attempts to track the shipment, the complainant was informed that no tracking information was available. When the passport did not arrive within a reasonable timeframe, the complainant contacted opposite party No.3 (the postal department), only to be told that no such passport had been received. Persisting with opposite parties No.1 and 2, the complainant was again reassured that his passport had been dispatched on 06.01.2020. With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and the subsequent lockdown in March 2020, the complainant had no choice but to wait for the situation to improve. In September 2020, following an improvement in the COVID-19 scenario, the complainant renewed his inquiries with opposite parties No.1 and 2. He received another email from them (Annexure C-6), repeating that the passport had been dispatched on 06.01.2020. The continued non-receipt of the passport prevented the complainant from traveling abroad for his honeymoon in November 2020, causing significant inconvenience and distress to both him and his wife. Efforts to resolve the issue through Twitter communication with the opposite parties remained unsuccessful. Consequently, the complainant sought information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act and once again, the response from the opposite parties (Annexure C-10) reiterated that the passport had been dispatched on 06.01.2020. Due to the inability to obtain the renewed passport in a timely manner, the complainant contended that the actions of the opposite parties constitute deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice. Multiple requests of the complainant made to opposite parties to address the issue were of no avail.

3]                On the other hand, opposite parties No.1 & 2, while contesting the allegations made in the complaint, pleaded that the complainant's passport had indeed been received and renewed with the new passport valid until 02.01.2030. According to their statement, this renewed passport was dispatched to the complainant as per protocol. They further claimed that upon realizing the situation, they promptly arranged for a new passport to be issued without any additional charges in April 2022 and this passport has since been received by the complainant. They further pleaded that any fault lay with the postal authorities, who failed to deliver the passport due to discrepancies in the complainant's address.

4]                Opposite Party No.3 - the postal department in its reply specifically denied receiving any article bearing number PP844769068IN at the delivery post office. It contested the cause of action set forth by the complainant and sought to challenge the consumer complaint.

5]                The District Commission partly allowed the complaint against opposite parties No.1 & 2 and dismissed the same against opposite party No.3, as stated above.

6]                The impugned order has been assailed by opposite parties No.1 & 2 (appellants herein) on the ground that the order is based upon presumptions and without there being any material on record. It has been stated that once passport is ready and dispatched by way of speed post, a message is also given to the complainant on his mobile. It has further been stated that the passport perhaps could not be delivered in the covid times for more than one reason and the prime reason was that the complainant had changed his address. It has further been stated that the issuance of passport being a sovereign function and passport not being a commodity and only a valid permission for citizen to enter another nation, this does not fall under the ambit of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 being not a service. To say so, reliance has been placed on S. Vijayakumar Vs. Regional Passport Officer, Revision Petition No.3322 of 2009 decided by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi on 10.04.2015 and Passport Officer Vs. Ajay Bansal, Revision Petition No.3785 of 2013 decided by Hon’ble National Commission on 13.03.2015.

7]                Despite due service through email, respondent No.1/complainant did not appear before this Commission and as such, he was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 07.06.2024. It may be stated here his earlier Counsel namely Ms. Priyanka Sood, Advocate, when contacted telephonically, also pleaded no instructions.

8]                Per contra, Respondent No.3/Opposite Party No.3 has supported the observations and findings of the District Commission holding the appellants/opposite parties No.1 and 2 guilty of deficiency in rendering service.

9]                After considering the rival contentions of the Counsels for the parties and going through the impugned order, material available on record and the written arguments of the parties very carefully, we are of the considered view that the appeal is liable to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. At the outset, it is significant to note that both parties agreed that respondent No.1/complainant applied for the renewal of his passport with the appellants on 17.12.2019 and he subsequently received an email, Annexure C-3 from the appellants, notifying him that the passport had been dispatched on 06.01.2020. When the passport did not arrive, respondent No.1/complainant contacted the appellants to request tracking assistance for the dispatched passport. Respondent No.1/complainant’s case was that the failure to deliver the passport constituted a deficiency in service entitling him to relief. Conversely, the appellants argued that respondent No.1/complainant's allegations are false and maintained that the District Commission lacked the jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaint, which they asserted should be dismissed. While the appellants consistently informed respondent No.1/complainant through various emails that the passport was dispatched and provided a tracking number, PP844769068IN but they did not present any conclusive evidence before the District Commission such as a postal receipt or dispatch documentation to substantiate that the passport was sent via speed post on 06.01.2020. This failure to provide evidence implies that the appellants did not fulfill their responsibility to prove that the passport was dispatched from their office on the stated date. Given the lack of proof from the side of appellants, the District Commission absolved respondent No.3/opposite party No.3, the postal service, from its liability for the non-delivery of a parcel, which it never received. Consequently, the District Commission reasonably concluded that the appellants did not dispatch the passport to respondent No.1/complainant on 06.01.2020 and thus, the passport was not delivered to respondent No.1/complainant. However, it is essential to note that respondent No.1/complainant received the passport during the pendency of the complaint. Nonetheless, it is established that the appellants failed to prove that they dispatched the passport on 06.01.2020. Their negligence in ensuring the passport was delivered to respondent No.1/complainant within a reasonable time definitely constituted a deficiency in service. It was the responsibility of the appellants to verify that the passport had been delivered to the addressee, the complainant. Their contention that respondent No.1/complainant had changed his address is bereft of any substance in view of the fact that had there been any change in the address, the passport would have been returned back with the some report. However, it was the specific stand of respondent No.3/opposite party No.3, the postal authority, from day one that it never received any passport from the appellants. Thus, the contention raised now in appeal is totally unacceptable and seems to be an afterthought.  

10]              In response to the appellants' argument that the issuance of a passport is a sovereign function and that a passport itself is not a commodity but merely a valid permission for a citizen to enter another nation, thus not falling under the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as it is not a service, the District Commission referred to the ruling by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Chandrakant Narsinghbhai Patel Vs. Regional Passport Office and Others (Special Civil Appeal No.11008 of 2002, decided on 23.12.2002). In this case, it was established that "Under the Passports Act, 1967, specifically Section – Passport, it is clear that a passport is a personal property that must be delivered directly to the individual concerned. When a passport is dispatched through the postal service, it is the responsibility of the passport officer to ensure that the postal department has successfully delivered the passport to the intended recipient." In light of this precedent, the District Commission correctly identified a deficiency in service by the appellants. Furthermore, the Hon’ble National Commission, in the case of Passport Officer vs. Richa Bhandari (Revision Petition No.120 of 2015, decided on 17.3.2016), ruled that a person who applies for a passport and is subsequently issued one is considered a consumer. This designation applies to all activities undertaken by the passport office or any outsourced agency following the decision to issue a passport. Any unjustified delay in the preparation, issuance, dispatch, or delivery of a passport, or any defects or deficiencies therein, constituted a deficiency in service as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. It was further held that a consumer complaint seeking compensation for such deficiencies is maintainable.

11]              Consequently, the judgments cited by the appellants do not support their case being distinguishable on facts. In the present case, the deficiency was related to the non-delivery of the passport by the appellants, which was established on record. The passport was never sent to respondent No.1/complainant. Instead, the situation of respondent No.1/complainant aligns with the judgment in Passport Officer vs. Richa Bhandari (supra), where the respondent was aggrieved by the appellants' deficiencies regarding the unexplained delay in the preparation, issuance, dispatch, and delivery of the passport. This delay caused significant harassment to respondent No.1/complainant. Therefore, the actions of the appellants constituted a deficiency in service. The District Commission correctly determined that respondent No.1/complainant was entitled to compensation for the harassment and inconvenience suffered due to the negligent actions of the appellants. Thus, we do not find any illegality, perversity or material irregularly in the impugned order, which is sustainable in the eyes of law.

12]              For the reasons recorded above, this appeal, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed with no order as to cost.

13]              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

14]              File be consigned to the Record Room after completion.

Pronounced.

11.06.2024.

(RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 

 

(RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER

Ad