DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 870/2015
D.No.________________ Dated: ___________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
1. PRABHAT KUMAR RASTOGI
S/o LATE SH. HARSHARAN DASS RASTOGI,
2. Ms. LUXMI RASTOGI
BOTH R/o 61-C, BW BLOCK,
SHALIMAR BAGH, NEW DELHI-110088. … COMPLAINANT (s)
Versus
THE PASSPORT OFFICER,
PASSPORT OFFICE
AGGARWAL TOWER, PLOT No. 2,
DISTRICT CENTER, SHALIMAR PLACE,
OUTER RING ROAD, DELHI-110088. … OPPOSITE PARTY
CORAM:SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Institution: 11.08.2015 Date of decision:14.03.2019
SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
ORDER
1. The complainants have filed the present complaint against the OP under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 thereby alleging that the complainants are holding passport bearing no. B-2320276 valid from 24.07.2000 to 23.07.2020 and passport no. B-1692085 valid from 27.04.2000 to 26.04.2020 and both the passports are handwritten and issued by OP. The complainant further alleged
CC No.870/2015 Page 1 of 7
that as per ICAO guidelines/regulations only machine readable printed passports will remain valid after 31.03.2014 and the complainants approached passport office at Shalimar Bagh for replacement of their handwritten passports by machine readable passports and for that the complainants were asked to pay fee as required for re-issue of passports which is not correct. The complainants further alleged that the complainants also made online complaint to the passport office over the replacement vide service request no. 1530260629 which is not replied and then RTI application was filed by the complainants which is replied vide reply dated 12.06.2015 by OP where in it is stated that the requisite fee is to be paid as required in the case of re-issue, notwithstanding the validity of passport. The complainants further alleged that the contentionof OP is not correct as replacement is the requirement of passport office and the handwritten passports are valid up to 2020 and full fees has already been paid at the time of issue of the passports then there is no question of any further fees for the replacement of handwritten passports by machine readable passports.
2. On these allegations the complainant has filed the complaint praying fordirection to OP to replace the handwritten passports by machine readable printed passports till their validity without
CC No.870/2015 Page 2 of 7
demanding the fees again and also sought suitable compensation on account of mental agony and harassment.
3. OP has been contesting the case and filed written statement and submitted that the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. OP further submitted that OP is a Govt. undertaking & hence the officers concerned has to work as per the process, rules, regulations, guidelines and notifications issued by the department from time to time and hence OP has acted only as per process/guidelines/rules & regulations issued by the department & as the complainants have applied for replacement of their old handwritten passport with newly computerized passport & the same can only be done thereby reissuing the passport to both of them with signature of the present passport officer & for the same appropriate/concerned fees is required to be charged& hence the complaint moved by the complainants is baseless and the same deserves dismissal. OP further submitted that OP has already issued the computerized passports to the concerned persons only after collecting adequate fees/charges from them & hence it is not with the complainants only that OP is asking to deposit charges for the same to the complainants and the complainants are taking service from OP for which OP is to charge, as there is no fault on the part of OP in the issuance of handwritten passports to the
CC No.870/2015 Page 3 of 7
complainants in year-2000, as at that time the passports were issued in handwritten state & now if ICAO has issued some guidelines regarding the same then OP cannot be held responsible.
4. The complainants filed rejoinder and denied the contentions of OP. Complainants submitted that the processor for issue a fresh passport or re-issue of passport is contained in Schedule III of the Passport Rules, 1980 and in the rules there is no processor for replacement of handwritten passport to machine readable passport and no fees has been prescribed for such replacement in Schedule IV.
5. In order to prove his case the complainantno.1 namely Sh. Prabhat Kumar Rastogi filed his affidavit in evidence and also filed written arguments. The complainant also placed on record copies of old passports, copy of RTI application and copies of reply dated 12.06.2015 & 22.07.2015 sent by OP to the complainant. Complainant has also filed a copy of newspaper “Hindustan” dated 06.08.2015 wherein there is a news report that “Sh. V.K. Singh, Minister of State for Foreign Affairs in written reply to Lok Sabha informed on 05.08.2015 that in case of re-issuance of passports police verification is not required.”The complainant also filed copies of receipts dated 19.05.2016 issued by the OP vide application reference no. (ARN) 16-0002789646 & 16-0006110462 of
CC No.870/2015 Page 4 of 7
Rs.1,500/- each which is the amount deposited by the complainant for reissuance of passports.
6. On the other hand on behalf of OP Sh. Subir Narayan, Officiating Regional Passport Officerfiled his affidavit which is on the basis of the written statement of OP. OP also filed written arguments. OP also placed on record copy of reply dated 22.07.2015 sent by OP to the complainant and copies of Office Order dated 09.08.2016 & 09.02.2017 thereby authorizing Passport Assistants to appear in the Consumer Forum.
7. This forum has considered the case of the complainant and OP in the light of evidence of both the parties and documents placed on record.The case of the complainants has remained consistent and cannot be disbelieved. Moreover, OP has not disputed factum of issuance of old passports to the complainants having validity upto 23.07.2020 & 26.04.2020 respectively. OP has also not disputed that the old passports which have been issued to the complainants are handwritten passports and have been issued after charging of required fees and completion of other formalities at that time.
8. OP has taken the defence that the fee is being charged on the basis of ICAO guidelines. But despite giving directions, OP has failed to place on record copy of such directions if any. Thus, OP cannot be permitted to take this defence. When the complainants have already paid required fees for issuance of passports by OP which were
CC No.870/2015 Page 5 of 7
handwritten then OP cannot charge the fee again for re-issuance of passports having same particulars. Charging of fee by OP in the case of the complainants cannot be termed as legal and this action of OP amounts to unfair trade practice. OP has already re-issued machine readable passports to the complainants after charging the fee and OP has not disputed that an amount of Rs.1,500/- for each passport was deposited by the complainants for re-issuance of the passports.
9. Thus, charging of fee of Rs.1,500/- for re-issuance of each passport by OP when the complainants have already paid the requisite fee at the time of issuance of handwritten passport amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. This Forum is of opinion that OP ought not to have charged the fee again. Thus, we hold OP guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
10. Accordingly, OP is directed as under:
i) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.3,000/-being illegally charged for replacement/reissuance of old passports.
ii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and harassment.
iii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.3,000/- towards litigation cost.
11. The above amount shall be paid by the OP to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order failing
CC No.870/2015 Page 6 of 7
which OP shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum from the date of receiving copy of this order till the dateof payment. If OP fails to comply with the order within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order, the complainant may approach this Forum u/s 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
12. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on this 14th day of March, 2019.
BARIQ AHMED USHA KHANNA M.K. GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT)
CC No.870/2015 Page 7 of 7
