Tripura

West Tripura

CC/14/73

Sri Kalyanbrata Bhattacharjee - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Regional Passport Officer And Others - Opp.Party(s)

non appear

22 Jun 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

    CASE NO:  CC- 73 of 2014

Sri Kalyanbrata Bhattacharjee,
S/O- Lt. Bhabatosh Bhattacharjee,
Joynagar, Agartala, 
West Tripura.            ............Complainant.

         ______VERSUS______

            
1. The Regional Passport Officer,
    Govt. Of India,
    Ministry of External Affairs,
    4, Brabourne Road, 
     Kolkata- 700001.

 2. Government of Tripura,
represented by the Secretary,
G.A. (Political) Department,
Civil Secretariat, Agartala.         ..........Opposite parties.

3. Union Of India,
represented by the Secretary,
Ministry of External Affairs,
New Delhi-110002.               ..…..Proforma Opposite Party.        

                    __________PRESENT__________

 SRI S. C. SAHA
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SHR. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

C O U N S E L

For the Complainant         : Complainant in person.
                       
For the O.P. No.1        : None appeared.
                  
For the O.P. No.2        : Mr. D. P. Ghosh,
                  Advocate.

                    
JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON : - 22.06.15

J U D G M E N T     

        This is a complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(herein after referred to as 'the Act') filed by the complainant, Sri Kalyanbrata Bhattacharjee of Joynagar, Agartala, West Tripura against the O.Ps, namely The Regional Passport Officer, Govt, of India, Ministry of External Affairs, Kolkata- 700001 and 2 others over a consumer dispute alleging negligence and deficiency in rendering service on the part of the O.Ps.

2.        The fact of the case as gathered from the record is that the complainant applied for a new International Passport in the prescribed form through the O.P. No.1, the Govt. of Tripura on 25.08.12. He deposited all the relevant documents and requisite fee of Rs.1000/- by way of demand draft along with the application form. The O.P. No.2 duly received the application form vide no- 3852 dated 25.08.12 against file no- CA 0901009360112. Subsequently by searching through internet he became sure that the O.P. No.1 duly received the application form on 05.06.13.  Most surprisingly, after expiry of more than one year from the date of receipt of the application form, the O.P. No.1 neither issued the international passport in favour of him nor he was informed anything for withholding issuance of passport. He made several correspondence with the O.P. No. 1 through courier service for taking necessary action for issuance of international passport in his favour but it yielded no results. It is alleged that for non issuance of passport by the O.P. No.1 he suffered harassment and mental anxiety, which according to him, constituted negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. No.1 and, therefore, he is liable to be duly compensated by the O.P. No.1. Hence, this complaint.

3.        The O.P. No.1, The Regional Passport Officer, did not contest the case though notice was sent to him through speed post. Hence, the case has been proceed exparte against him.
        
4.         The O.P. No.2, The Govt. Of Tripura, contested the case by filing written objection stating, interalia, that the Govt. of Tripura  has no role in issuing passport. The G.A (political) Department of Govt. of Tripura just receives the application forms for international passport from the applicants and thereafter such forms are handed over to the O.P. No.1 for issuance of passport. It is admitted that the complainant applied for international passport on 25.08.12 through the passport Application Collection Centre, Agartala. It is denied that the Govt. of Tripura was negligent and deficient in rendering service to the complainant in any manner whatsoever.

5.        In support of the case, the complainant has examined himself as P.W. 1. The complainant has not exhibited any document separately as at the time of filing the complainant he annexed all the relevant documents to the complain petition. 

6.        No primary or secondary evidence has been adduced on behalf of the O.P. No.2.
    
    FINDINGS:

7.        The points that would arise for consideration in this proceeding are:
        (i) Whether the O.P. No.1 caused undue delay in issuing international passport in favour of the complainant though he applied for the same long back on 25.08.12;
        (ii) Whether the conduct of the O.P. no.1 constituted negligence and deficiency in service. 

8.        We have already heard the arguments advanced by the complainant in person and the learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No.2. Also perused the pleadings, documents on record and the evidence adduced by the complainant meticulously. 

9.        It is the plea of the complainant that he applied for international passport to the O.P. No.1 through O.P. No.2 along with relevant documents and requisite fee of Rs.1000/- on 25.08.12 but the O.P. no.1 did not issue passport in favour of him after lapse of long delay. Hence, the conduct of the O.P. No.1 amounts to deficiency in service.

10.        During the course of hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No.2 submitted that the act of issuing passport is the sovereign act of the state and for the non-issuance of passport, no complaint is maintainable under the C.P. Act. Further that, the complainant can not be said to be consumer under the C.P. Act and the dispute raised was not a 'consumer dispute', and, as such the complaint was not entertainable by this Forum.

11.        We are told by the complainant that during pendency of the proceeding the O.P. No.1 issued international passport in favour of him. It is the case of delay in issuance of the passport in favour of the complainant by the O.P. No.1. On our query the complainant could not show us any provision of Passport Act or any other Acts which provides any time for issuance of passport.  In this connection, it is advantageous for us to refer to the judgment of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab dated 07.05.13 passed in first Appeal No- 226 of 2010(Regional Passport Officer and another Vrs. Tarwinderjit Singh) wherein it is held that ''a person either applied for the issuance of the passport or renewal thereof to the Passport Officer does not fall under the definition of 'Consumer' as contained in the Act.

12.        The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab by relying upon the judgment dated 13.03.96 of the Hon'ble National Commission rendered in original petition No- 78 of 1995(Ved Prakash Vrs. Union Of India) and III (2006) CPJ 406(Regional Passport Officer Vrs. Santosh Chouhan) it is held that ''a person either applied for the issuance of a passport or renewal thereof to the Passport Officer does not fall within the definition of 'Consumer' as contained in the Act.'' 

13.        In our considered opinion, the facts and circumstances of the present case are very much similar to the case referred to above. So, by applying the ratio of law laid down in the above cited judgments it can be safely held that the complainant being not a consumer under the definition of C.P. Act no complaint lies against Union of India for non issuance of passport in favour of the complainant. That being so, the complaint is not entertainable by this Forum.

14.     Consequently, the complaint U/S 12 of the Act filed by the complainant stands dismissed being not maintainable. However, we make no order as to costs.   
       
15.                  A N N O U N C E D

 

 

SRI S. C. SAHA
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SHRI. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA.