CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VII

DISTRICT: SOUTH-WEST

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

FIRST FLOOR, PANDIT DEEP CHAND SHARMA SAHKAR BHAWAN

CASE NO.CC/335/13

          Date of Institution:-    27.05.2013

          Order Reserved on:- 19.04.2024

                     Date of Decision:-      03.10.2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

M. S. Khurana

S/o Sh. D. S. Khurana

R/o J-1834, C.R. Park,

New Delhi - 110019

.….. Complainant

VERSUS

The Passport Officer

G.O.I., Ministry of External Affairs

G.F. Hudco, Trikoot-3, Bhikaji Kama Place,

R.K. Puram, New Delhi – 110066.

…..Opposite Party

Suresh Kumar Gupta, President

1. The complainant has filed the complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as Act) with the allegations thathe has booked four air tickets including the ticket of his daughter against passport no.1295445 from Delhi to New york for 08.08.2012. His daughter Ms.PrableenKaurKhurana was not allowed to travel to USA on 08.08.2012 due to wrong entry of address in the passport. On 20.01.2005, the passport was taken under Tatkal Scheme for five years by showing the address i.e. 33, VinobhaPuri, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. She has travelled to Singapore using the passport. On 03.06.2009, the passport was renewed till 19.01.2015. On 21.07.2009, the address was got changed to J-1834, CR Park, New Delhi. In August 2012, the immigration officer held on Ms.Prableen’s Passport for 45 minutes when she was in the process of boarding a flight for a family holiday in Canada/USA. She was not allowed to leave the country and passport was impounded which caused embarrassment and harassment. They had to leave Ms.Prableen at the airport at 11.00 PM to board the flight. They believed that this is a mistake on the part of OP which would be rectified. The uncle of Prableen had to visit several times to retrieve the passport which took 15 days due to which Prableen could not join the family abroad. A penalty of Rs.5000/- be paid to retrieve the passport. They got a notice from the OP but it was nowhere mentioned who should be contacted. They had to spend close to four hours in the department that too without any result. The family went through trauma and discomfort due to the above stated incident. They did not receive any notification informing them of deficiency in the Prableen record. There is blunder on the part of OP. Hence, this complaint.

2. The OP has filed the written statement to the effect that complainant has applied for passport in the name of his daughter Ms.PrableenKaurKhanna on 18.01.2015 by reflecting the address as 33, VinobhaPuri, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. On 20.01.2015, the passport under tatkal service was issued. The verification was conducted through DCP, CID. The report no.530557 dated 11.03.2005 shows that
   Ms.PrableenKaur is not residing at the given address upon which a show cause notice under section 10 (3) (b) Passport Act, 1967 was dispatched at a given address qua which no response was received and impounding circular was issued on 15.10.2008.On 05.05.2009, the holder of the passport got the address changed at the express counter of the office without complying with show cause notice due to which impounding circular could not remove. The complainant has approached the office of OP on 23.08.2012 and paid the penalty after realizing the mistake on account of furnishing wrong information about the address while applying for passport under Tatkal services. The passport office is a public dealing office where number of people visit so one has to wait for his turn. There is no merit in the complaint. The complainant is not consumer and accordingly complaint is not maintainable.

3. The complainant has filed the rejoinder wherein he has reiterated the stand taken in the complaint and denied the averments made in the written statements.

4. The partieswere directed to lead the evidence.

5. The complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence wherein he has corroborated the version of complaint.

6. The OP has filed the affidavit ofDr.AmanPuri, in evidence wherein he has corroborated the version of written statement.

7. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record.

8. The question that needs consideration is whether complainant is a “consumer”and whether the duties of the passport office falls under the definition of “service” as defined in the Act.

9. This issue is no more Res Integra. The issuance of passport or making correction in it by the Central Government is a Sovereign Act which has to be performed by the authorities in accordance in prescribed rules. Every passport application goes through internal security procedure such as Police and CID etc.

10. In the instant case, the passport was issued under Tatkal services to the daughter of the complainant on 20.01.2005. The address was shown as 33, VinobhaPuri, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. The Police verification was carried out through CID after the issuance of passport and report no.530557 dated 11.03.2005 received from CID shows that daughter of the complainant does not reside at the given address which led to the issuance of the notice on 19.01.2007 under section 10 (3) (b) Passport Act. The notice has remained unserved which led to the issuance of impounding circular on 15.10.2008. The complainant has got the address changed to J-1834, Chitranjan Park, New Delhi on 05.05.2009 without complying with the show cause notice due to which impounding circular was not recalled.

11. The complainant has denied the knowledge issuance of show cause notice or impounding circular.

12. The notice Annexure-1 filed by OPwas issued at the address given in the passport which remained unserved. The LOC has been issued on 05.05.2009.

13. The passport was impounded on 08.08.2012 when daughter of the complainant tried to board the flight for Canada from IGI Airport, New Delhi due to difference in the address as well as in terms of LOC issued by OP. The said seizer memo is placed on record by the complainant.

14. The passport is an important document. The passport officer has to satisfy himself about the number of facts. The passport officer is justified in issuing show causes notice even if a thin line of suspicious appears. Section 17 of the Passport Act says that passport remains the property of the Central Government. The suspicion about the address led to the issuance of show cause notice as well as LOC which remained pending despite the fact that complainant got the address changed at the express counter on 05.05.2009.

15. In K. K. Katariavs Assistant Regional Passport Officer, 1998 (1) CCC 201, it was held by their lordship that passport is not a commodity which can be purchased or sold for consideration. It was further held that function of Central Government under Passport Act could not be equated with “service” defined under CP Act.

16. The passport officer has issued show cause notice and LOC in accordance with the Passport Act and rules. The said notice and LOC remained on the record though complainant got the address changed at the express counter without getting them removed from the record which led to the impounding of passport at the Airport due to which daughter of complainant board the flight.The said entry was removed after paying penalty of Rs.5,000/- for the suppression of facts and order impounding the passport was removed from the index vide endorsement dated 23.08.2012 of RPO as clear from Annexure-2.

17. No fault can be found with the act and conduct of the OP. In view of our aforesaid discussion, it is clear that service provided by the RPO cannot be equatedwith the definition of “service” under the Act. The complainant is not a consumer under the Act.

18. The compliant is not maintainable and accordingly the same is dismissed.

• A copy of this order is to be sent to all the parties as per rule.
• File be consigned to record room.
• Announced in the open court on 03.10.2024.