BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.
Consumer Complaint No. 39 of 2016
Date of Institution: 29.1.2016
Date of Decision: 25.5.2016
Gurmit Singh son of Shri Rachhpal Singh, aged 44 years, resident of House No. 2592/15, Katra Karam Singh, Amritsar
Complainant
Versus
- Passport Officer, SCO 110, District Shopping Centre, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar
- Superintendent, Passport Office, Amritsar SCO 110 District Shopping Centre, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar
Opposite Parties
Complaint under section 12/13 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present: For the Complainant : In person
For the Opposite Parties : Sh. M.S.Chhinna,Advocate
Coram
Sh.S.S.Panesar, President
Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member
Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member
Order dictated by:
Sh.S.S. Panesar, President.
1. Gurmit Singh, complainant has brought the instant complaint under section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that complainant was holder of passport issued by the opposite party which was lost and missing intimation was given to the concerned police station. Thereafter, the complainant applied for obtaining new passport after filling the requisite documents and submitted the same to the office of the opposite party. After receiving the application for issue of the passport, opposite party issued receipt No. 9941 dated 12.11.2014 bearing application No.AS1078099710614. Thereafter the opposite party did not call the complainant for further proceedings. The complainant visited the office of the opposite party on 7.5.2015, 29.5.2015 and 9.6.2015 to enquire about the status of his application. Every time the opposite party used to put the complainant off either on one pretext or the other and did not make any satisfactory reply. A legal notice was served upon the opposite party on 27.11.2015 which was replied by opposite party No.2 dated 8.12.2015 stating therein that the file of the complainant has been closed due to the reason that in earlier passport the spellings of his name were “Gurmit Singh” while in this application, he has mentioned his name as “Gurmeet Singh”. The copies of the application No. AS1078099710614, copy of notice, copy of reply of the application are attached. The opposite party never told the complainant for submitting any affidavit regarding change in spellings and they have been harassing the complainant for a long time which amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, opposite parties No.1 & 2 filed joint written statement taking certain preliminary objections therein inter alia that the present complaint is not legally maintainable ; that the present complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties . The complainant had made opposite party “Regional Passport Officer, Amritsar” which is absolutely wrong. Hence, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed ; that the present complaint has been filed without any cause of action. The Passport office Amritsar is doing statutory duty of the Govt. of India, Ministry of External Affairs. The complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer. Passport authority is working and issuing passport which is within the discretion of the Central Govt. and for the issuance of the passport, rules and regulations are to be followed. The Passport authority can refuse to issue a passport to an applicant on valid grounds as per Passport Act, 1967 and Passports Rules, 1980 circulars and instructions issued from time to time by the Central Govt. The applicant who moved an application for passport , is not a consumer as envisaged in the Consumer Protection Act. The applicant for getting the passport is not hiring the services of the passport office for getting a passport. The duty of the passport officer or the function of a passport officer does not fall under the category of service as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. The complaint as framed is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act and the complaint is liable to be dismissed; that it is settled principle of law that District Forum has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act regarding the statutory duty performed by the officials of the passport office under the Passport Act, 2967 and Passport Rules, 1980 ; that complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and he is guilty of suppression of material facts from the court. The complainant has not disclosed the fact that he has applied for issuance of passport on 26.9.2014 in the name of Gurmeet Singh son of Sh.Rachhpal Singh,R/o H.No.2592/15, Katra Karam Singh, Amritsar vide file No. AS1078099710614 in lieu of passport No. A 4403793 dated 5.1.1998 issued by Passport Office, Jalandhar, reported to be lost. The complainant had submitted application form for issuance of passport alongwith affidavit bearing spellings of the name of the complainant as Gurmeet Singh, attested by Satish Kumar Anand, Notary Public, Amritsar. The case was referred to Passport office, Jalandhar to confirm the particulars of lost passport. Reply was received from Passport office, Jalandher confirming particulars with the remarks that the name of the applicant is Gurmit Singh instead of Gurmeet Singh ; that as per reply of the Passport office, Jalandhar file of the complainant was closed on 8.6.2015 and the complainant was informed in writing to apply again in correct spelling of name on 11.6.2015 ; that the complainant has filed the present complaint without any cause of action. On merits, facts narrated in the complaint have been specifically denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.
3. In his bid to prove complainant tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of legal notice dated 27.11.2015 Ex.C-2, copy of enquiry slip Ex.C-3, copy of letter dated 9.6.2015 Ex.C-4, copy of receipt dated 12.11.2-14 Ex.C-5, copy of letter dated 8.12.2015 Ex.C-6, copy of postal receipt Ex.C-7 and closed the evidence.
4. To rebut the aforesaid evidence Sh.M.S.Chhina,Adv.counsel for opposite parties No.1 & 2 tendered affidavit of Sh.Krishan Kumar, Passport officer Ex.OP1,2/1, copy of complete file of passport application containing 22 pages Ex.OP1,2/2 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite parties No.1 & 2.
5. We have heard the complainant in person and ld.counsel for the opposite parties No.1 & 2 and have carefully gone through the record on the file.
6. There is no denying the fact that the complainant applied for grant of passport to Passport Authority, Amritsar vide application, copy whereof is Ex.C-3. As a matter of fact, the complainant was already holder of passport No.A 4403793 which was stated to have been lost by the complainant . Said passport was issued from Passport Office, Jalandhar. A reference was made by the opposite parties to Passport Office, Jalandhar for verifying the facts of the particulars mentioned in the application vis-à-vis the particulars mentioned in the earlier passport. The information regarding the same was received by the opposite parties from the Passport Office, Jalandhar in which it was stated that in the earlier passport the spellings of the name of the complainant were ‘Gurmit Singh’ instead of ‘Gurmeet Singh’ in the present application. On the basis of the information received , the file for grant of the passport was closed and the complainant was intimated vide letter dated 9.6.2015, copy whereof is Ex.OP1,2/2 (page 22) on record. It is the contention of the opposite party that the opposite party was performing the statutory duties under the Passport Act, 1967 and Passport Rules, 1980 and it is a statutory body. The complainant was intimated that he could apply afresh by correcting the spellings of his name in-consonance with the spellings mentioned in the earlier passport. It is the further case of the opposite party that the complainant does not fall under the ambit of ‘consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act because he has not hired the services of the opposite parties nor the opposite parties fell under the ambit of service provider. The application/file has been closed for issue of the passport on valid & legal grounds. The complainant has absolutely got no cause of action to file the present complaint. District Consumer Forum is also not competent to entertain any complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act .
7. From the appreciation of the facts & circumstances of the case it becomes evident that the complainant is not a consumer u/s 2(1)(d) of the Act nor the opposite parties are the service providers. The opposite parties are performing their duties under the Passport Act, 1967 & Passport Rules, 1980 & the duties performed by the opposite parties are statutory in nature. As such, provisions of the Consumer Protection Act are not applicable in such a case & the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain or try the complaint Under Section 12 & 13 of the Act. Reliance in this connection can be placed upon Passport Office, Jalandhar –Appellant/opposite party Vs. Vikas Dugg S/o Paramjit Dugg r/o VPO Nussi District Jalandhar –Respondent/complainant First Appeal No. 2099 of 2010 decided by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab ,Chandigarh on 29.4.2014 wherein reliance was placed upon the judgement of Ved Parkash Vs. Union of India (Original Petition No. 78 of 1995 decided by the Hon’ble National Commission on 13.3.1996). In that case the grievance was put forward by the complainant in respect of the delay in the renewal of the passport. It was held by the Hon’ble National Commission that the same does not constitute a ‘consumer dispute’ which can be validly entertained and adjudicated by the Commission under the Act. Similarly, in Regional Passport Officer Vs. Santosh Chauhan (III(2006) CPJ 406) there was delay in issuing the passport and in the complaint the grievance was projected that the same amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the Passport Officer. After discussing the case law on the subject, it was held by the Haryana State Commission that the complainant & First Appeal No. 679 of 2011 had no right to invoke the jurisdiction of the District Forum seeking direction to the opposite party to issue passport to him and other reliefs as he cannot be said to be the consumer under section 2(1)(d) of the Act. It has already been held by this Commission while deciding FA No.226 of 2010 (Regional Passport Officer and another Vs. Tarwinderjit Singh), vide order dated May 07,2014 that a person either applying for the issuance of the passport or renewal thereof to the Passport Officer does not fall under the definition of the consumer as contained in the Act.
8. Judgements ‘supra’ apply to the case of the complainant in all its fours. Since the complainant is not proved to be a consumer nor the opposite parties are service providers under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, therefore, the complaint is not maintainable before the Consumer Fora.
9. Consequently, instant complaint fails and the same is ordered to be dismissed accordingly. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated : 25.05.2016
/R/ ( S.S.Panesar ) President
( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)
Member Member
