CC No.1944.2015

Filed on 04.12.2015

Disposed on.17.03.2018

BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BENGALURU– 560 027.

DATED THIS THE 17^th DAY OF MARCH 2018

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.1944/2015

PRESENT:

Sri.  H.S.RAMAKRISHNA B.Sc., LL.B.

        PRESIDENT

              Smt.L.MAMATHA, B.A., (Law), LL.B.

                     MEMBER

                                       V/S

ORDER

BY SRI.H.S.RAMAKRISHNA, PRESIDENT

1. This Complaint was filed by the Complainant on 04.12.2015 U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and praying to pass an Order directing the Opposite Parties to pay sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the damages, to pay Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony, Rs.25,000/- towards deficiency of service and Rs.5,000/- towards inconvenience and other reliefs. 
2. The brief facts of the complaint can be stated as under:

In the Complaint, the Complainant alleges that he is a Candian Passport Holder since 03.08.2010 and has been travelling to India as he has been employed in Airwide Solutions Private Limited a US based Company.  Since he is now working in India in the above Company situated at Bangalore.  Since his passport expired on 03.08.2015 he had applied for renewal of his Canadian Passport, to its embassy/High Commission at Delhi after issuing the new Passport, the High Commission had couriered the said passport along with his old passport to his address.   On 09.10.2015, he was handed over a cover which was in opened state by his watchman, Ram Bahadur.  It was found that the new passport issued by the Canadian High Commission at page No.27 was torn and became invalid.  Immediately, he traced the package in the Opposite Parties website and found that the said package was delivered on 30.09.2015 itself to one Shankar Bahadoor.  Since it is a property of the state and the same was torn and became invalid, he is compelled to lodge a police complaint before Sanjaynagar Police.  The police after receipt of the complaint has registered the same as Pet.No.288/2015 on 10.10.2015 and are investigating the matter.  The Complainant had brought the tearing of the passport to the Canadian High Commission and the High Commission had clearly stated that the said passport is invalid and the Complainant cannot travel with such a passport.  Further stated that it can only be replaced on his personal presence at High Commissions office at New Delhi and upon payment of requisite fee towards replacement of passport which would be about Rs.20,000/-.  Apart from this, he has to personally visit the Canadian High Commission, New Delhi.  Thus, the Complainant has to travel 2 to 3 times to Canadian High Commission for submission of torn passport, on process that may require his presence more than three times and collection of it.  Therefore, all other expenses other than the Fee of Rs.20,000/- will come to Rs.50,000/-, which if the Opposite Party had delivered the package directly to the Complainant.  The Opposite Party No.2 had simply washed away his hand by saying sorry,  when he had come to the Complainant’s house on 09.10.2015.  Though a phone number is provided the Opposite Party’s did not even called the Complainant at the time of delivery of the package and thereby handed it over to unauthorized person, which resulted in damage to the passport and huge loss to the Complainant.  Apart from the above, he was to travel to Canada on the said passport on official duty, which was cancelled due to invalid passport, which has resulted him a loss of oversees allowance which is called per DM, about $ 100 per day. Thus according to him he has lost 4 months per DM which would amount to Rs.8,00,000/- over a period of 4 months, since the replacement of passport will take about 4 months from the date of submission.  The Police had called the Opposite Party No.2 on the basis of the complaint and a date was fixed for appearance of both the parties on 10.10.2015.  However, the Opposite Party No.2 who is the head of Bangalore office did not turn up before the Jurisdictional Police as directed by them.  Therefore, the Sanjaynagar Police registered the complaint and issued an endorsement as stated above.   This amounts to deficiency of service on Opposite Party’s part causing mental agony and monetary loss to the Complainant. Hence this complaint.

3. In response to the notice, the Opposite Parties put their appearance through their counsel and filed their separate version.  The Opposite Parties in the version pleaded that the complaint is filed by the Complainant is not maintainable.  The Complaint has not come before this Hon’ble Forum with clean hands and moreover complaint has suppressed many facts before this Hon’ble Form in order to make unlawful claim gain.  The Complainant is not a ‘Consumer’.  The Complainant is a foreign national alleged to be holding a Canadian Passport, hence Jurisdiction of filing above complaint does not arise before this Hon’ble Forum.  The Complainant does not have any contract nor is he a direct/customer to the Opposite Party.  The complaint is bad for nonjoinder and misjoinder of parties, since the Complainant has not made the Canadian Embassy/Canadian High Commission, New Delhi a party to the above proceedings.   All allegations made in the above complaint are frivolous, vexatious, false and concocted only to make out unlawful gain and any allegations made in the complaint and prays to dismiss the complaint.

4. The Complainant, Mr.Srinidhi Kannappady filed her affidavit by way of evidence and closed her side.  The Opposite Party, Sri.Joyce filed his affidavit by way of evidence.  Heard the arguments of Opposite Party.

5.      The points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether the Complainant is a ‘Consumer’ as defined under Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ?
2. Whether the Complainant has proved the alleged deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties ?
3. If so, to what relief the Complainant is entitled ?

6.     Our findings on the above points are:-

                POINT (1):-  Negative

POINT (2):-  Will not survive for consideration

                POINT (3):-  As per the final Order

REASONS

7.    POINT NO.1:- The learned Counsel for the Complainant argued that the Complainant is a ‘Consumer’ as defined under Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Since the Complainant availed the service of the Opposite Parties.  The Complainant is a Canadian Passport Holder since 03.08.2010.  He is now working in India, his passport expired on 03.08.2015 he had applied for renewal of his Canadian Passport, to its embassy at Delhi after issuing the new passport, the High Commission had couriered the said passport along with his old passport to his address stated above with his phone noted on it, through Opposite Party. For the said purpose he had spent Rs.20,000/- including the renewal fee.  Thus the Complainant is a ‘consumer’ as defined under Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

8. The learned Counsel for the Opposite Party argued that the Complainant is not a ‘Consumer’ as defined under Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The ‘Consumer’ as defined under this act any person who buys any goods for a consideration any person who hires or avails of any services for a consideration.  Therefore, the Complainant is not a direct ‘Consumer’ as per the above said act.  Even the Complainant has clearly admitted in the Interrogatories served on him i.e., he is an indirect customer of the Opposite Party but Canadian High Commission takes Rs.200/- INR for postage from the Complainant.  Thereby the Complainant is not a ‘Consumer’ as defined under Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

9. With this argument and on perusal of record, it is clear that the Complainant applied for renewal of his Canadian Passport and the documents produced by the Complainant itself clearly establish that the Complainant paid Rs.200/- as Courier Charges to the Government of Canada but not to the Opposite Party.  The ‘Consumer’ as defined under the act any person who buys any goods for a consideration any person who hires or avails of any services for a consideration.  In the present complaint, the Complainant has not paid any consideration to the Opposite Parties and he has not availed the service from the Opposite Parties.  On the other hand, he has paid the consideration to Government of Canada and Government of Canada availed service of the Opposite Party to deliver the renewed visa to the Complainant address.  At the most Complainant is ‘Consumer’ and Government of Canada but not the ‘Consumer’ of Opposite Party. Thereby the Complainant is not a ‘Consumer’ as defined under Section 2(d) of the Act.  Therefore, it is not proper to accept the contention of the Complainant that the Complainant is a ‘Consumer’ as defined under Section 2(d) of the Act.  Hence, this point is held in Negative.  

10.  POINT NO.2:- In view of our findings on point No.1 is held in Negative.  In question of considering the point No.2 will not survive. Hence, we answer point No.2 will not survive for consideration.

11. POINT NO.3:-  In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

The Complaint is dismissed.  No cost.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties. 

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Forum on this, 17^th day of March 2018).

        MEMBER                                             PRESIDENT

LIST OF WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS

 Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant:

1. Mr.Srinidhi Kannappady, who being the Complainant has filed her affidavit.

 List of documents filed by the Complainant:

1. Copy of the Old Passport,
2. Copy of the Torn Passport,
3. Original Postal Cover,
4. Copy of the Package tacking details.
5. Copy of the Police Complaint dt.09.10.2015,
6. Copy of the acknowledgment given by Sanjaynagar Police,
7. Letter sent by the Delhi High Commission on 09.10.2015.
8. Copy of the DD dt.30.06.2016.
9. Copy of Official Receipt,
10. Gmail correspondences
11. Tracking Details.

Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

1. Sri.Joyce, Senior Accounts Manager of Opposite Parties by way of affidavit.

List of documents filed by the Opposite Party:

                                      -NIL-

    MEMBER                                                                         PRESIDENT