Delhi

North East

CC/4/2015

MS. Shruti Garg - Complainant(s)

Versus

Passport Office - Opp.Party(s)

11 Sep 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 04/15

 

In the matter of:

 

	Ms. Shruti Garg R/o 27, RPS, DDA Flats, Mansarovar Park, Shahdara, Delhi 110032	Complainant
	Versus
	Regional Passport Office : Delhi Hudco Trikoot-3, Bhikajit Cama Place, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110066	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION      :

15.01.2015 10.09.2018 11.09.2018

 

 

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

Ravindra Shankar Nagar, Member

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

 

ORDER

1. The case of the complainant succinctly put is that she had applied to the OP for issuance of Passport vide application no. DL1067978228614 for which she had deposited the requisite fee of Rs. 1500/- on 28.06.2014 at the time of submitting the application form online alongwith challan for the said amount deposited in SBI. Thereafter, the complainant was required to visit the office of OP for completion of formalities which she did as per requirement on 11.08.2014 and was issued appointment letter on the same date. After a few days, a police officer visited the premises of the complainant and asked for the original documents which were duly produced and got verified by the complainant to his satisfaction and the said officer assured the complainant that she would received her passport within next two-three weeks. However, the complainant didn’t receive the passport till the end of Novemeber 2014 and therefore, issued a notice dated 27.11.2014 to OP calling upon the OP to issue the passport within 15 days of its receipt. However, the said notice was returned unserved with postal remarks “LEFT” and interpolation on the address of OP by addition of words “R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110066” on the envelop. Therefore, the grievance of the complainant of non-issuance of passport and no reason for inordinate delay in issuance thereof has given birth to present complaint whereby the complainant has prayed for issuance of directions against the OP to issue her passport without any delay, to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards mental and physical harassment and Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of litigation. Complainant has annexed the copy of passport application form, copy of passport seva challan, copy of acknowledgment letter dated 11.08.2014 issued by RPO, Delhi, copy of notice  dated 27.11.2014 alongwith envelop.
2. Notice was issued to OP vide order dated 13.03.2015 and OP entered appearance on 15.04.2015 and filed its written statement on 28.08.2015 due to Forum non-functional owing to renovation work.  The OP took the defence that when the police officer visited the premises the house of complainant  and asked the complainant to produce all her original documents for verification, the complainant replied to the police officer “I have already submitted the documents and their photocopies in the passport office. So there is no need to submit the said documents once again” thereby didn’t produce any original document to the police officer for verification. Therefore, the OP received a negative report by the police officer and accordingly, sent a letter to complainant dated 15.04.2015 for reverification but the complainant didn’t visit the office of OP for the same and in light of the defence taken prayed for dismissal of complaint. OP has attached copy of verification report dated 17.08.2014 and copy of 15.04.2015 issued to complainant.
3. Rejoinder and evidence by way of affidavit filed by complainant in which the complainant submitted that the passport was reapplied for in July 2015 and the same was issued by OP in July 2015 itself. However, her grievance is that when she had earlier applied for the same in June 2014 and had completed all the formalities by 11.08.2014, the passport should have been issued by OP in August 2014 itself whereas the same got issued in July 2015 after delay of 11 months and the letter dated 15.04.2015 was never received by complainant and was issued on the date on which the hearing was fixed by this Forum meaning thereby that the OP never intimated the complainant about any report having been furnished by Delhi Police and even the said report filed by OP alongwith its written statement nowhere stated that the passport should not be issued to the complainant. The complainant exhibited copy of letter dated 15.04.2015 and copy of passport issued in July 2015 by OP during the pendency of present complaint.
4. Evidence by way of affidavit filed by OP in which it reiterated its defence and exhibited the statement of complainant given to police officer,  first verification report dated 17.08.2014 with issue of passport to the applicant - not recommended (adverse PVR) alongwith the personal particulars form bearing the endorsement of statement made by the complainant to the police officer, copy of letter dated 15.04.2015, copy of second police verification report dated 20.07.2015 with issue of passport to applicant – recommended, clear PVR alongwith personal particular forms bearing endorsement P&R checked nothing found adverse against applicant alongwith enquiry report in passport verification dated 16.07.2015 with comment “I agree with EO’s report” by Inspector North-East.
5. Written arguments filed by complainant as well as OP in reassertion/ reaffirmation of their respective grievance / defence. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and have thoroughly perused the documentary evidence placed on record and given our anxious consideration to the issue in dispute. The mute question which has arisen for the consideration of this Forum is whether non-issuance of passport by OP is deficiency of service within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act for maintainability of present complaint to give the locus of complainant as a consumer within section 2(1)(d) of CPA. The Hon’ble National Commission in its three members bench judgment of Regional Passport office V/s. Anuradha Thadipathri Gopinath III (2008) CPJ 118 (NC) decided on 10.07.2008 held that the question of issuance of passport is a statutory function and not a consumer dispute though issuance of an invalid passport would amount to deficiency of service within the meaning of Act.   The Hon’ble National Commission in Union of India V/s. Beena Sharma in R.P. No. 4344/2012 decided on 27.08.2013 had held that issuance of passport was a sovereign power of Govt. of India and it was not incumbent on the government to issue a passport in each and every case, thereby ,dismissing consumer complaint. This is clearly distinguishable and inapplicable to cases where the grievance of complainant is on account of any defect or deficiency in the service such as printing, preparation, dispatch and delivery of passport to him. The Hon’ble National Commission further in the judgment of Passport officer, passport office V/s Ajay Bansal in R.P. No. 3785/2013 decided on 13.03.2015 was dealing with the issue of grievance of complainant of non-issuance of passport which was resisted by the OP on ground that there was adverse police report against the complainant and since he had failed to submit explaination with respect to the said report, passport was not issued to him. There was no grievance of complainant on account of any defect or deficiency with respect to, printing, preparation, dispatch or delivery of the passport and therefore, the Hon’ble National Commission relying upon Beena Sharma (Supra) judgment dismissed consumer’s complaint holding the issuance of passport as the sovereign function.

On a reference being made in the landmark judgment of Hon’ble National Commission in Passport Officer V/s Richa Bhandari in R.P. No. 120/2015 decided on 16.03.2016, the Hon’ble National Commission passed an order answering three pertinent questions regarding passport. On the question of whether the applicant of passport is a consumer, the Hon’ble Commission held that the fee is not paid to meet the expenses involved in the process of Passport Officer deciding whether to issue the passport or not. It is paid to meet the expenses incurred on special security paper, printing, lamination etc. Therefore, a person applying for a passport would be a consumer only in respect of activity which the passport office or the agency to which such activities are outsourced, undertakes, after the decision of the passport officer to issue the passport to applicant in case the consumer is agrived from defect or deficiency including injustify delay in the services rendered to him by the passport office, post decision/ approval of the passport officer to issue a passport to him. It was also clarified by Hon’ble National Commission that the services provided by passport office post the decision of issue passport to the applicant cannot be said to be a sovereign or statutory function. If there is deficiency or defect in services rendered post decision to issue a passport, a complaint under CPA is maintainable under 2(1) (f) and 2(1) (g) respectively of CPA entitling the consumer to seek compensation for such a defect or deficiency. In light of the settle preposition of law passed by Hon’ble National Commission in the aforementioned landmark judgments, we have no hesitation in coming to conclusion that the complainant was not a consumer of OP within the meaning of section 2(1)(d) of CPA from the time of application for passport till its rejection and intimation of rejection thereof by OP since the said function is a sovereign function of Govt. of India and not a consumer dispute. She would be considered consumer of OP only post approval/ sanction of her passport by OP in July 2015 and for any subsequent deficiency or defect which may have arisen post decision of OP to issue passport to complainant which is not the grievance of complainant in present case as per her own admission she had reapplied for passport in July 2015 and got the same in same month itself in order without any discrepancy therein. We, therefore, dismiss the present complaint as non-maintainable with no order as to cost.

6.  Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
7.   File be consigned to record room.
8.   Announced on  11.09.2018

 

(N.K. Sharma)      President

(Sonica Mehrotra) Member

(Ravindra Shankar Nagar) Member