Punjab

Faridkot

CC/24/50

Kanwaljit Kaur Brar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Regional Passport Officer - Opp.Party(s)

Baljinder Kaur

12 Aug 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FARIDKOT

C. C. No. :               50 of 2024

Date of Institution:   18.03.2024

Date of Decision :    27.08.2024

 

Kanwaljit Kaur Brar aged about 54 years, wife of Navdeep Singh Brar, resident of House No.03, Street No.04/R, Near Gurudwara Sahib Road, Green Avenue, Faridkot, Tehsil and District District Faridkot.

 

...........Complainant

Versus

 

 

 Regional passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, Near Custom Chowk, Sri Amritsar Sahib.

............OPs

Complaint under Section 35 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Quorum: Sh Rakesh Kumar Singla, President,

     Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present: Ms Baljinder Kaur, Ld Counsel for complainant,

              OP Exparte.

* * * * * * * *

 

(Rakesh Kumar Singla, President)

ORDER

                                                                  Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against OP seeking directions to OP to issue passport in the name of complainant and to pay Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment suffered by complainant and for litigation expenses.

2                                                        Briefly stated the case of complainant is that passport bearing no. G 7144578 was issued in the name of complainant on 24.01.2008 and it was valid till 23.01.2018. It is submitted that at the time of applying for passport, date of birth of complainant was wrongly mentioned as

cc no.- 50 of 2024

 

05.08.1972 in the earlier passport though actual date of birth of complainant is 05.08.1970. Now, complainant has applied for re-issuance of passport but Opposite Party has raised objection that date of birth of complainant is wrong. It is submitted that there is no fault on the part of complainant as her date of birth was wrongly mentioned as 05.08.1972 by office of opposite party. It is further submitted that date of birth of complainant is 05.08.1970 and to support his pleadings, he has placed on record copy of certificate issued by Punjab School Education Board, for middle standard wherein it is clearly mentioned that recorded date of birth of complainant is 05.08.1970. PAN Card issued by Government of India also reveals the fact that date of birth of complainant is 05.08.1970 and adhaar card of complainant also shows the date of birth of complainant as 05.08.1970. Now, grievance of the complainant is that despite repeated requests, Opposite party has not reissued passport to her with correct date of birth, which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and it has caused harassment and mental agony to her. Complainant has prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation for harassment and litigation expenses. Hence, the present complaint.

3                            The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 20.03.2024, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the OP.

4                                       Registered cover containing copy of notice of complaint alongwith relevant documents was sent to OPs, did not receive back in office undelivered. On date fixed, after expiry of statutory period when no body appeared in the Commission either in person or through counsel on behalf of OP, then vide order dated 07.06.2024, OP was proceeded against exparte. However, a letter was

cc no.- 50 of 2024

 

received from opposite party that is taken on record and is considered as reply on behalf of OP.

5                                   Proper opportunities were given to complainant party to prove their case. Ld Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-5 and documents Ex C-1 to C-4 and then, closed the evidence.

6                                As there is no rebuttal from Ops side, therefore we have heard the arguments advanced by ld counsel for complainant and also gone through the pleadings and evidence placed on record by complainant. The case of the complainant is that she was born on 05.08.1970, but OP wrongly mentioned date of birth of complainant as 05.08.1972 at the time of issuance of passport on 24.01.2008. Now, complainant has applied for reissuance of passport with correct birth date, but OP have neither corrected the date of birth nor have issued new passport. Though complainant has admitted in the complaint that once she went abroad on said passport. Act of OP in not renewing the passport with correct date of birth, amounts to deficiency in service.

7                                Thought OP is exparte and there is no rebuttal from Opposite side, but Regional Passport Office, Amritsar has sent letter dated 10.04.2024 to this Commission, wherein they have given reference of judgments in Case Revision Petition No. 3322 of 2009 titled as S Vijaykumar and another Vs Regional Passport Officer, Tichy and others and Revision Petition No.3785 of 2013 titled as Passport Officer, Jaipur Vs Ajay Bansal in which it is mentioned that  Passport Offices do not fall under the purview of Service Provider and complaint was not maintainable before District Forum.

8                                 Through this letter, it is also brought before the Commission that Passport is not a commodity, which can be purchased or sold for

cc no.- 50 of 2024

 

consideration, rather it is only in the nature of permission granted by the sovereign to its citizens to go outside the country. Issuance of passport, is a function of the  Central Government required to be performed under the Passport Act, and it could not be equated with the services rendered to the consumer within meaning of the Consumer Protection Act. Moreover, Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab has held in case titled as Regional Passport office Vs Gurpreet Singh Mangat decided on 19.06.2020 that services provided by the Airport Authorities do not qualify or equate with the definition of ‘services’ as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. Thus, complaint made by the complainant with respect to deficiency in service on the part of Passport Authority in providing their services does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Consumer Protection Act and thus, neither the complainant qualifies as consumer nor the authorities services as ‘service’ mentioned in the Act. Also, Passport Authority is a Statutory Body and the issuance of passport or making any correction in it by the Central Government or by any authority empowered under the Passport Act is a sovereign act and this has to be performed by the authorities according to the prescribed rules.

9                             In view of aforementioned facts and circumstances, this Commission is of considered opinion that present case does not come under the purview of Consumer Protection Act and is not maintainable here. Therefore, present complaint is hereby dismissed. However, complainant is at liberty to file it afresh before appropriate and competent court. Period consumed in present litigation shall be excluded for the purpose of calculating limitation.

10                                 In peculiar circumstances of the case, there are no orders as to costs.

cc no.- 50 of 2024

 

11                                Complaint case could not be decided within stipulated period due to heavy pendency of work and incomplete quorum.

12                                      Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law.  

13                                           File be consigned to the record room.

Announced in Commission :

Dated: 12.08.2024             

 

(Param Pal Kaur)           (Rakesh Kumar Singla)

                                           Member                         President