BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.

Complaint No.21 of 2015

                                                                         Instituted On:05.03.2015

Decided On: 09.03.2015

Daljit Kaur Sandhu minor daughter of Lajinder Singh Sandhu son of Surjit Singh resident of H. No.186, Bhagat Singh Colony, Basti Gobindgarh, Moga, through her father Lajinder Singh as next friend and natural guardian.

……..Complainant

Versus

1.       Regional Passport Office, Chandigarh, through its Superintendent.  

2.       A.P.O. Chandigarh. 

                                                                   ……… Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

        Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Coram:       Sh.S.S.Panesar, President

                   Smt Vinod Bala, Member

                   Smt Bhupinder Kaur

Present:       Sh Krishan Kumar Adv. Cl. for the complainant.

C.C.No. 21 of 2015                          //2//

ORDER

(S.S.Panesar, President)

        The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after referred to as ‘Act’) against  Regional Passport Office, Chandigarh, through its Superintendent and another (herein-after referred to as ‘opposite parties’)-OPs directing them to issue a fresh passport by mentioning correct place of birth of Daljit Kaur Sandhu, to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as  compensation for causing mental tension and harassment besides Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation  and also to grant any other relief to which this Forum may deem proper.

2.                Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant applied for issuance of passport with the opposite parties by mentioning correct place of birth and date of birth. It has been pleaded that on 10.01.2012, the opposite parties issued a passport No.E0700287 to the complainant in which the opposite parties have mentioned place of birth Bharam and address of the complainant was shown as VPO Bharam, P.S.Mallanwala Tehsil,  Zira District Ferozepur, which is wrong. The complainant approached the opposite parties and requested them to make the necessary correction in the passport. Thereafter, on 12.12.2006, the opposite parties again issued a fresh passport No.G0835348. But, even then the opposite parties have failed to rectify the mistake in the passport. Due to the negligent act of the opposite parties, the complainant is suffering from mental and physical harassment and economic loss.  Hence the present

C.C.No. 21 of 2015                          //3//

complaint.

3.                Heard on question of admission.

4.                The learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently contended that the complainant is a consumer and she applied for issuance of passport with the opposite parties by mentioning correct place of birth as well as date of birth. It is the case of the complainant that on 10.01.2002, the opposite parties were issued passport No.E0730287 to the complainant in which the opposite parties wrongly mentioned the place of birth Bharam and address of the complainant as VPO Bharam, P. S. Mallanwala, Tehsil, Zira, District Ferozepur. The complainant approached the opposite parties and requested them to make the necessary correction in the passport. Thereafter, the passport authorities again issued a fresh passport. But, even then the opposite parties have failed to rectify the mistake in the passport. It is contended that it amounts to serious deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Therefore, the complaint is required to be entertained by this Forum and requisite notice be issued to the opposite parties.

5.                However, from the perusal of the complaint, it shows that the same is not maintainable. The complainant has even failed to mention the alleged corrections to be made in the passport. A perusal of the complaint would reveal that it talks about the wrong place of birth or the address, but it no where states the correct place of birth or address. The complaint does not disclose any consumer dispute. In such a situation, the passport authorities would be neither the 

C.C.No. 21 of 2015                          //4//

service provider under the Consumer Protection Act nor the complainant is a consumer as defined in Section 2 (1)(d) of the Act. Reliance on this point can be placed on Regional Passport Officer, Passport Office, Jalandhar vs. Tarwinderjit Singh in first appeal No. 226 of 2010 decided on  07.05.2013 by the Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh, wherein it was held that Taalwinderjit  Singh Dhillon was not the consumer nor his complaint discloses the consumer dispute. On filing complaint before the District Forum, the latter allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to pay compensation and litigation expenses. The opposite parties preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble State Commission for setting aside the order of learned District Forum. Relying upon the judgments of Ved Parkash vs. Union of India in original petition No. 78 of 1995 and Regional Passport Officer vs. Santosh Chauhan III (2006) CPJ 406 delivered by Hon'ble National Commission, the Hon'ble State Commission, Punjab. observed as under.-

“In Ved Parkash's case supra , the grievance put forward by the complainant was in respect of the delay in renewal of the passport. It was held by the Hon'ble National Commission that it does not constitute a consumer dispute that can be validly entertained and adjudicated by the Commission under the Act. In Santosh Chauhan's case (Supra.) also the complainant's grievance was that there was delay in issuing the

C.C.No. 21 of 2015                          //5//

passport which 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 had no right to invoke the jurisdiction of District Forum seeking direction against the Opposite Party to issue passports to them and other reliefs as he cannot be said to be the consumer in terms of the requirements of Section 2(1) (d) of the Act. It becomes very much clear from these two judgments that a person either applying for the issuance of the passport or renewal thereof to the Passport Officer, does not fall within the definition of the consumer as contained in the Act. Therefore, the District Forum could not have entertained and decided the complaint. It committed an illegality while entertaining and deciding the complaint. Accordingly, the appeal is accepted . Order of the District Forum is set aside and the complaint of the complainant is dismissed.”

6.                The ratio of the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble State Commission, Punjab is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Since, complainant is not the consumer nor his complaint discloses the consumer dispute in view of the judgment

C.C.No. 21 of 2015                          //6//

of Hon'ble State Commission, therefore, the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and the same is ordered to be dismissed in limine. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost immediately and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:09.03.2015.