KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 370/2023

JUDGMENT DATED: 20.07.2023

(Against the Order in unnumbered C.C. of CDRC, Pathanamthitta)

PRESENT:

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.                                                    : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A                                              : MEMBER

SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.                                        : MEMBER

APPELLANT:

Susan Iember Mtsor, W/o Anakuzhiyil George Frank Oliver, Zion Anakuzhiyil House, Ettichuvadu P.O., Ranni, Angadi, Pathanamthitta.

(By Adv. A.G.F. Oliver)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. Union of India, represented by Principal Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi-110 001.

2. Foreigners Regional Registration Officer, Office of FRRO, Amrith Plaza, 1^st Floor, T.C. No. 30/1398, 3, Nalumukku, Pettah P.O., Thiruvananthapuram-695 024.

3. Aravind Menon IPS, Foreigners Regional Registration Officer, Office of FRRO, Amrith Plaza, 1^st Floor, T.C. No. 30/1398, 3, Nalumukku, Pettah P.O., Thiruvananthapuram-695 024.

JUDGMENT

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.: JUDICIAL MEMBER

This is an appeal filed under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pathanamthitta (will be referred as District Commission in short).  On 11.05.2023 the District Commission had declined to admit the complaint filed by the appellant on the reason that the Consumer Protection Act is not applicable to the facts narrated in the complaint.

2.  The Complainant is the wife of an Indian Citizen who got married each other on 05.10.2018.  Later the marriage was registered at Ranni on 25.04.2019 as per the Special Marriage Act.  The complainant had applied for Life Long Visa or OCI on 11.12.2020 as per section 7(A) d of the Citizenship Act after completion of 2 years from the date of marriage.  But the respondents had disputed the marriage.  So the complainant filed a Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court as WP(C) No. 3575/2021 which was allowed by the High Court as per the order dated 21.01.2022. Still the respondents had refused to register the name of the petitioner and rejected her petition on 17.06.2022. The petition was rejected after keeping the matter for a long duration of 18 months.  The petitioner had twice paid Rs. 15,000/- each as fees. She would attribute deficiency in service and hence the complaint.  The Appellant had challenged the order of the District Commission contending that she will come within the definition of a consumer as per Section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act.  She had paid fees and the District Commission has committed an error in not registering the complaint.  The finding of the District Commission that Union of India is above the consumer dispute is also untenable.

3.  Heard the Counsel for the appellant.  We have perused the appeal memorandum.  The complainant is a Nigerian Citizen who applied for Overseas citizenship on the ground that she had married an Indian citizen and a child was begotten in the said wedlock.  Her application was dismissed by the Foreign Regional Registration Officer which according to the petitioner amounts to deficiency of service.

          4.  In examining this case the  Rulings  of the Supreme Court  reported in 1998(1)CCC201 in “K.K. Katria V Assistant Passport Officer”  and in AIR 1977 SC 1174 in Nrisingha Murari Chakraborty & Others V  State of West Bengal” have to be looked into.  It is declared by the Apex Court that passport is not a commodity, which can be purchased or sold for consideration, but it is only a nature of permission granted by the sovereign state to its citizen to go out of the country which cannot be equated with the definition of "service".  It was also found that a passport, by virtue of its nature, is a political document for the benefit of its holder, as it recognizes him as citizen of the country as the same is granted to a person in the nature of request to another country for his passage therein.  Here the permission is sought by a foreign citizen to accord status of an Indian citizen.  So, by adopting the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the above rulings it cannot be found that the cause projected by the petitioner would come within the sweep of “service” under the Consumer Protection Act.  We find no error in the order passed by the District Commission and no reason to admit the appeal.

In the result, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.

AJITH KUMARD.: JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                                                        BEENA KUMARY. A         : MEMBER

jb                                                                     RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.  : MEMBER