ORDERS:
Varinder Pal Singh Saini, Member
1 The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act (herein after called as 'the Act') against the opposite parties on the allegations that the complainant Sarmukh Singh applied for his Passport with the good office of opposite party No.1 on 28.9.2017. Till date the complainant has not received his passport so applied before the office of opposite party No. 1 and upon which the complainant so many times approached the concerned authorities of passport office Amritsar with a request to do the needful in the matter but the concerned authorities did not listen the complainant properly rather they intimated the complainant that the passport office has already issued a passport in the name of the complainant Sarmukh Singh vide passport No. R4834772 on 2.11.2017 vide file No. AS1061532885017 and they further intimated the complainant that the passport has duly been dispatched on 3.11.2017 through speed post vide tracking No. PP849661862IN and told to the complainant to approach the concerned authorities of the post office. Thereafter, the complainant approached the concerned authorities of Post office at Amritsar as well as Post Office at Tarn Taran with a request to hand over/ deliver his passport but the concerned authorities started putting of the matter on one false pretest or the other and at last the complainant moved a RTI application dated 16.4.2018 and in reply to that RTI application, the office of the opposite party No. 2 gave a written reply by submitting that disposal of articles was sought from National sorting Hub, Amritsar and the said article No. PP849661862IN addressed to the complainant Sarmukh Singh, was received as per the dispatched list of passport office dated 3.11.2017 and disposal of said article is not forthcoming since the record for the period April 2017 to January 2018 has been valid out as the preservation period of record of NSH Amritsar is six months as per the departmental rules. As per version of the opposite parties, the office of the opposite party No. 1 has issued the passport of the complainant and further the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 duly received the passport of the complainant but inspite of that the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 have failed to get deliver the same to the complainant till date and as such, the complainant is suffering a great mental pain and agony at the hands of the opposite parties and without any fault on his part. It was still his duty to get delivered the passport of the complainant to him. The complainant has prayed that following relieves may be granted:-
- That the opposite parties may kindly be directed to issue the above mentioned passport to the complainant.
- The opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay Rs. 70,000/- as compensation to the complainant for causing mental pain, agony and harassment.
- The opposite parties may be directed to pay Rs. 30,000/- as litigation charges to the complainant in the interest of justice, equity and fair play.
Alongwith the complaint, the complainant has placed on record his affidavit Ex. C-1, Self attested copy of notice Ex. C-2, Self attested copy of reply of legal notice dated 19.9.2019 Ex. C-3, Self attested copy of RTI information Ex. C-4.
2 After formal admission of the complaint, notice was issued to Opposite Parties. The opposite party No. 1 did not appear inspite of service, consequently, the opposite party No. 1 was proceeded against exparte.
3 The opposite parties No. 2, 3 appeared through counsel and filed written version contesting the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is legally not maintainable against the opposite parties No. 2, 3 and the same is liable to be dismissed. The complaint filed by the complaint is not within the period of limitation and is hopelessly barred by limitation as provided under Rule 66-B, clause 4 of India Post Office Rules 1933. Further the passport was dispatched on 3.11.2017 and the present complaint has been filed after a lapse of two years stipulated period. Since no complaint was ever received in the office of opposite parties No. 2 and 3 from the complainant within the stipulated time and the opposite parties No. 2, 3 acted well within its rights to weed out the record pertaining to the period April, 2017 to January, 2018 during which the speed post article under reference was booked as per the departmental ruling. The record for the period April, 2017 to January, 2018 was weeded out by the office of Manager, NSH Amritsar on 20.11.2018 well before receipt of RTI application of complainant in the office. Due to weeding out of record, disposal of speed post article in question could not be traced and hence, the reply was furnished according to the RTI application preferred by the complainant. Due to weeding out of record, disposal of speed post article in question could not be traced. The disposal was sought from National sorting Hub, Amritsar and the NSH, Amritsar has informed that the article PP849661862IN dated 3.11.2017 addressed to complainant at his address House No. 46, Near Gurudwara Gill Kaler Tarn Taran 143401 was duly delivered and received by complainant as per dispatch list of passport office dated 3.11.2017 and article number PP4961861IN has not been received. However, the disposal of article number PP849661862IN is not forthcoming since the record for the period April, 2017 to January, 2018 has been weeded out as per the preservation period of record of NSH Amritsar is six months as per departmental rules issued vide letter No. AGM/BD/Cell/N Delhi 32-121/99BD dated 26.4.2002. The complaint is author of his own wrongs and is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint against the opposite parties No. 2, 3 and as such, the same is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it was pleaded and admitted by the opposite parties No. 2, 3 that an RTI application dated 16.11.2018 was received at the office of opposite parties No. 2, 3 on 26.11.2018 from the complainant Sarmukh Singh son of Nirmal Singh and the reply to the said RTI application was duly replied vide letter bearing No. BD/RTI-244 dated 24.12.2018. No complaint has been received at the office of opposite parties No. 2, 3. Though complainant has mentioned visiting the post office multiple times but complainant has not mentioned any complaint number or letter number vide which he submitted any complaint in the office of opposite parties No. 2, 3 within stipulated time. By amendment to the Statutory Rules in 1986, Rule 66-B which relates to Speed Post was introduced w.e.f. 1.8.1986 in India post office Rules, 1933 and clause 4 of the same reads as under:-
“Complaints regarding any article booked under this service (including a demand for refund of fees in cases of non-delivery of articles within three months from the date of booking of the article and shall inter alia contain the number of the article, the date of booking and the name of the office of booking.”
As such, since no complaint was received in the office of opposite parties No. 2, 3 regarding non delivery of speed post article under reference, therefore, the opposite parties No. 2, 3 was not under any obligation to preserve the record pertaining to the article under reference. The opposite parties No. 2, 3 acted well within its rights to weed out the record pertaining to the period April, 2017 to January 2018 during which the speed post article under reference was booked as per the departmental ruling. The record for the period April, 2017 to January, 2018 was weeded out by the office of Manager, NSH Amritsar on 20.11.2018 well before receipt of RTI application of complainant in the office. Due to weeding out of record, disposal of seed post article in question could not be traced and hence, reply was furnished accordingly to the RTI application preferred by the complainant. The opposite parties No. 2 and 3 have denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. Alongwith the written version, the opposite parties No. 2, 3 have placed on record affidavit of Hari Mohan Senior Superintendent of Post, General Post office, Amritsar Ex. OPW2/A alongwith documents Ex. OPW2/1 to Ex. OP3W2/7.
4 We have heard the Ld. counsel for the complainant and opposite parties No. 2, 3 and also carefully gone through the record.
5 Ld. counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant Sarmukh Singh applied for his Passport with the office of opposite party No.1 on 28.9.2017 and till date the complainant has not received his passport. They intimated the complainant that the passport office has already issued a passport bearing No. R4834772 on 2.11.2017 vide file No. AS1061532885017 in the name of the complainant Sarmukh Singh. They further intimated the complainant that the passport has duly been dispatched on 3.11.2017 through speed post vide tracking No. PP849661862IN and told to the complainant to approach the concerned authorities of the post office. Thereafter, the complainant approached the concerned authorities of Post office at Amritsar as well as Post Office at Tarn Taran with a request to hand over/ deliver his passport but the concerned authorities started putting of the matter on one false pretext or the other and at last the complainant moved a RTI application dated 16.4.2018 and in reply to that RTI application, the office of the opposite party No. 2 gave a written reply by submitting that disposal of articles was sought from National sorting Hub, Amritsar and the said article No. PP849661862IN addressed to the complainant Sarmukh Singh, were received as per the dispatched list of passport office dated 3.11.2017 and disposal of said article is not forthcoming since the record for the period April 2017 to January 2018 has been valid out as the preservation period of record of NSH Amritsar is six months as per the departmental rules. He further contended that as per version of the opposite parties, the office of the opposite party No. 1 has issued the passport of the complainant and further the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 duly received the passport of the complainant but inspite of that the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 have failed to get deliver the same to the complainant till date and prayed that the present complaint may be allowed.
6 Ld. counsel for the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 contended that the present complaint is legally not maintainable against the opposite parties No. 2, 3. The complaint filed by the complaint is not within the period of limitation and is hopelessly barred by limitation as provided under Rule 66-B, clause 4 of India Post Office Rules 1933. The passport was dispatched on 3.11.2017 and the present complaint has been filed after a lapse of two years stipulated period. He further contended that no complaint was ever received in the office of opposite parties No. 2 and 3 from the complainant within the stipulated time and the opposite parties No. 2, 3 acted well within its rights to weed out the record pertaining to the period April, 2017 to January, 2018 during which the speed post article under reference was booked as per the departmental ruling. Due to weeding out of record, disposal of speed post article in question could not be traced. The disposal was sought from National sorting Hub, Amritsar and the NSH, Amritsar has informed that the article PP849661862IN dated 3.11.2017 addressed to complainant at his address House No. 46, Near Gurudwara Gill Kaler Tarn Taran 143401 was duly delivered and received by complainant as per dispatch list of passport office dated 3.11.2017 and article number PP4961861IN has not been received. He further contended that the disposal of article number PP849661862IN is not forthcoming since the record for the period April, 2017 to January, 2018 has been weeded out as per the preservation period of record of NSH Amritsar is six months as per departmental rules issued vide letter No. AGM/BD/Cell/N Delhi 32-121/99BD dated 26.4.2002. The complaint is author of his own wrongs and is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint against the opposite parties No. 2, 3 and prayed that the present complaint may be dismissed.
7 In the present case, the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 have taken objection that the present complaint is not within limitation as the passport was dispatched on 3.11.2017 and the present complaint is filed after the lapse of two years. But we are not agreed with the version of the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 because the complainant was firstly waiting for his passport and the complainant has placed on record letter dated 9.9.2019 Ex. C-3 issued by Passport Office, Amritsar addressed to the complainant in which the passport authority advised the complainant to contact Postal Department in this regard. As such, the present complaint is well within limitation.
8 In the present case, dispute between the parties is that the complainant has applied for passport with the opposite party No. 1 and said passport has not been received by the complainant so far. The complainant through is counsel Sh. Sangramjit Singh Advocate has served a legal notice Ex. C-2 addressed to the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 and in reply to the said legal notice the opposite party No. 1 has given reply as follows:-
“With regard to above it is informed that Passport Number R4834772 dated 2.11.2017 was issued to the applicant Sh. Sarmukh Singh by this office against his application Number AS1061532885017. Same was printed and dispatched to the applicant vide speed Post Tracking Number PP849661862IN and is not received un-delivered till date as per this office record.
So you are advised to contact Postal Department in this regard”
In the written version, the opposite party No. 2 and 3 have replied that the record for the period April, 2017 to January, 2018 was weeded out by the office of Manager, NSH Amritsar on 20.11.2018 well before receipt of RTI application of complainant in the office. Due to weeding out of record, disposal of speed post article in question could not be traced. The complainant has also placed on record reply of the RTI application by Sr. Supdt of Post offices Amritsar division, Amritsar Ex. C-4 in which the post office has given reply as follows:-
“In this regard, it is intimated that article of number as mentioned by you in RTI application dated 16.11.2018 is PP849661861IN, however article number as mentioned in email received by passport office attached along with by your good self is PP849661862IN dated 3.11.2017. In this regard, disposal of article was sought from National Sorting Hub, Amritsar. NSH, Amritsar has informed that article PP849661862IN addressed to Shri Sarmukh Singh, H. No 46, near Gurdwara Gill Kaler, Tarn Taran 143401 was received as per the dispatch list of passport office dated 3.11.2017 and article number PP849661861IN has not been received. However the disposal of article number PP849661862IN is not forthcoming since the record for the period April 2017 to January 2018 has been weeded out as the preservation period of record of NSH Amritsar is six months as per departmental rules issued vide letter number AGM/BD Cell N/Delhi. 32-121/99-BD dated 26.4.2002. The letter regarding weed out of record thus received from NSH, Amritsar is attached here with for kind reference.”
9 From the above said discussion and documents on record it reveals that as per their version, the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 have weeded out the record but the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 have not placed on record any document on the basis of which the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 have weeded out the record of the relevant period. According to version of the complainant and opposite party No. 2 and 3 the passport has been dispatched on 3.11.2017 by the Passport office Amritsar and the same was delivered to the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 for delivery to the complainant. But the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 have miserably failed to prove on record that the said passport has been delivered to the complainant, infact, the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 have alleged that the record for the said period has been weeded out. But the opposite party has not placed on record any document and rules of their department which show that the period for weeding out record is six month. The complainant could not receive his passport due to negligence in service on the part of the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 and it also amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties No. 2 and 3.
10 The passport is essential document in these days for foreign visit and if the complainant has not get issued the duplicate passport during this period, in the interest of justice, duplicate passport is required to be issued to be complainant as per rules.
11 In view of above discussion, the present complaint is allowed and the opposite party No. 1 is directed to issue duplicate passport to the complainant as per law, if same is not already issued to him. The complainant has been harassed by the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 for a long time. The complainant is also entitled to Rs. 4,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony and Rs 3,500/- as litigation expenses from the opposite parties No. 2 and 3. Opposite Parties are directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which the complainant is entitled to interest @ 9% per annum, on the awarded amount, from the date of complaint till its realisation. This complaint could not be decided within prescribed period due to heavy pendency of cases in this commission and COVID-19. Copy of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in Open Commission.
16.03.2023
