Complainant/respondent applied for International Passport along with his wife through the General Administration (Political), Department of State Government.  He paid Rs.1,000/- as fee.     His wife received the passport but he did not receive the same.  He contacted the petitioner but to no avail.  Respondent checked the concerned website and found that his passport has been sent by Speed Post.  Thereafter, he approached the petitioner repeatedly, but all in vain.  Ultimately, he came to know that on 31.8.2009 the Speed Post Authority intimated the petitioner that 33 Speed Post articles including the passport of the respondent have been lost.  Even thereafter, no duplicate passport was issued to him. 

Being aggrieved, respondent filed the complaint before the District Forum.  District Forum partly allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to issue passport to the respondent within 30 days from the issue of the order.  Rs. 5,000/- were awarded by way of compensation and Rs.500/- as costs. 

Both the parties preferred separate appeals before the State Commission.  Petitioner filed appeal seeking quashing of the order of the District Forum whereas the respondent filed appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.  By the impugned order, the State Commission while dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner, has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent.  The amount of compensation has been increased to Rs.25,000/-.

State Commission has come to the conclusion that deficiency in service was to be seen in the light of the provisions contained in the Passport Manual 2001.  The relevant provision contained in para-20 of the Manual reads as under :

“There are instances of non-delivery of passports to the applicants due to loss in transit in the post offices.  Following course of action may be taken in such cases :

i)                   When it transpires through inquiries from the applicant or otherwise, that a passport has not reached the applicant, the passport officer shall take up the matter with the post offices, requesting the latter to investigate the complaint regarding non-delivery of the passport;

ii)                If following its investigation, the post office finds that the passport is lost or untraceable, the post office must be requested to issue a certificate to that effect;

iii)              The applicant should file an FIR with the police with that certificate;

iv)              The applicant should be advised to apply afresh with the FIR / copy of the certificate from the post office fro issue of duplicate copy of the certificate from the post office for issue of duplicate passport. No fee should be charged for this application/passport;

v)                The passport officer should revoke the earlier “lost” passport lost in transit and issue LOC before issue of new passport;

vi)              In case of urgency, a short validity passport may be issued to the applicant, the validity to be extended to term on completion of the above formalities.

          State Commission, thereafter recorded the following finding :

“From the above it would appear that when the passport authority would come to know about loss in transit the passport officer shall take up the   matter with the post office requesting the latter to investigate the complaint regarding non-delivery of the passport. If after investigation the post office finds that the passport is lost or untraceable the post office shall issue a certificate to that effect. Though not specifically provide in the manual, it would obviously follow that the passport officer would give a copy of the certificate to the applicant to enable him to file an FIR. Sub clause (iii) of that paragraph provides that the applicant should file an FIR with the Police along with that certificate. Sub clause (iv) provides that the applicant should be advised by the Passport officer to apply afresh with copy of the certificate and FIR for issue of duplicate passport. In the present case admittedly copy of the certificate was not given to the complainant, neither he was advised to apply for issue of a duplicate passport. He, therefore, could not file an FIR. Thus, the mandatory provision of the manual was violated by the Passport officer by not giving a copy of the certificate to the complainant with advise to file an FIR and to apply for duplicate passport. The Regional passport officer is, therefore, at fault and guilty of serious deficiency in service.”

          We specifically asked the counsel for the petitioner (i) as to whether the Passport Officer, in line with the provisions contained in the Passport Manual 2001, took up the matter with the Post Office requesting it to investigate the complaint regarding non-delivery of the Passport; (ii) as to whether, on coming to know that the passport issued to the respondent was not traceable, the Passport Officer requested the Post Office to issue the certificate to that effect; and (iii) as to whether the Passport Officer advised the respondent to file FIR along with the copy of the certificate from the Post Office for issuance of the duplicate Passport.

          Counsel for the petitioner was unable to answer any of these three questions or rebut the finding recorded by the State Commission in para-5 of the impugned order.  Since the Passport Officer has failed to discharge his duties in view of the Passport Manual 2001, the petitioner was certainly guilty of deficiency in service.

          We find no infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission.  Dismissed.