DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC. No. 246 of 11-09-2009<br /> Decided on : 13-01-2010 <br /> <br /> Jatinder Kaur Dhillon D/o Harpal Singh aged 22 years R/o 32613, Street No. 1, Near Sandhu Cement Store, Paras Ram Nagar, Bathinda.<br /> <br /> .... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.Union of India, Ministry of External Affairs, Govt. of India, New Delhi.<br /> 2.Regional Passport Officer, SCO 36-49, City Centre, Sec. 34-A, Chandigarh.<br /> 3.Deputy Commissioner (District Passport Application Collection Centre), Bathinda. <br /> ... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM <br /> <br /> Ms. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. Mandeep Kaur, counsel the complainant <br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. Ravinder Kumar, A.R. of opposite party No. 2 and on behalf of opposite party No. 3. <br /> Opposite party No. 1 already exparte. <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> 1. In brief, the case of the complainant is that she got work permit from UK and therefore, she applied for passport alongwith all requisite documents vide receipt No. CHZ 002730 dated 12-07-2007 and deposited the requisite fee of Rs. 1000/- vide demand draft dated 12-07-2007 of Corporation Bank. She was assured that the passport will be handed over to her in 2/3 months, but she was not sent the passport for a period of 13 months. She received letter No. CHDZ 00273007 dated 1-11-2007 for sending attested copy of Matric Certificate which was already provided yet copy of the same was again sent vide registered letter dated 21-11-2009 to opposite party No. 2. The complainant made many telephone calls, sent registered letter and also got served legal notice and only thereafter she was issued passport on 12-09-2008. Hence, this complaint for issuing directions to the opposite parties to produce the entire record; pay to complainant compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,00,000/- as damages for mental tension etc and Rs. 13000/- as cost of this complaint.<br /> 2. Despite service of notice, none appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 1. Hence, exparte proceedings were taken against it. <br /> 3. Opposite party No. 2 filed reply stating therein that passport is not commercial service and issue of passport depends on the completion of the necessary formalities and the time in this varies from passport office to passport offices depending on the work load. Neither Passport Act. 1967 laid down any fixed time limit for issue of a passport nor it is possible for any time schedule to be laid down in this regard.<br /> 4. Opposite party No. 3 filed separate reply taking preliminary objection that complaint is not maintainable. It has been submitted that complainant has received Passport. Delay is only to complete formalities at the level of Regional Passport authorities to issue Passport and as such, no compensation is to be given by the answering opposite party. It has been pleaded that there is no fault at the level of opposite party No. 3.<br /> 5. In support of her averments contained in the complaint, the complainant has placed on record her affidavit Ex. C-1, legal notice Ex. C-2, reply of legal notice Ex. C-3, postal receipts Ex. C-4 & Ex. C-5, acknowledgement cum fee receipt Ex. C-6 and letter dated 1-11-07 Ex. C-7.<br /> 6. In rebuttal, opposite party Nos. 2 & 3 filed two affidavits of S/Sh. Ravinder Kumar and Vitul Kumar, Regional Passport officer Ex. R-1 & Ex. R-2 respectively.<br /> 7. We have heard counsel for the complainant and authorised representative of opposite party Nos. 2 & 3 and also gone through the entire record of the case.<br /> 8. The complainant applied for a passport alongwith requisite documents vide receipt No. CHZ 002730 dated 12-07-07 with opposite party No. 3 alongwith necessary fee of Rs. 1,000/-. She received letter No. CHDZ 00273007 dated 1-11-2007 for sending attested copy of matric certificate whereas the matric certificate had already been provided. Despite that, another copy of the certificate was sent. Complainant alleged that due to delay of 13 months in issuance of passport, she has suffered a lot on that ground. Opposite party No. 2 in its written reply pleaded that Passport Officer has to ensure that considerations involving law and order, national security, sovereignty and integrity of India, friendly relations of India with other country are taken into account among other similar factors before the issuance of Passport. Issuance of passport depends upon the completion of the necessary formalities and the time in this regard varies from passport office to passport offices depending on the work load. Passport Act, 1967 has not laid down any fixed time for issue of a passport.<br /> 9. After hearing both the parties, this Forum has concluded that under section 17 of the Passport Act, 1967, it becomes clear that passport or any other travel documents issued under this Act shall forever remain the property of the Central Government. Therefore, under the Passport Act no citizen has an absolute right to acquire or hold a passport as the issue of passport and its continued possession is at the discretion of the Government in the exercise of its sovereign duty.<br /> 10. Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi, in the Original Petition No. 78 of 1995 of Ved Parkash Vs. Union of India and others held that disputes relating to passport matters do not constitute a consumer dispute that can be validly entertained and adjudicated upon by this commission under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and that on this limited ground, the complaint has to fail and it is accordingly dismissed.<br /> 11. Therefore, in view of the above recorded facts, complainant is not a consumer within the meanings' of the term consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Passport Authority is a statutory authority and service rendered by this authority, is not the service provided in terms of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Hence this complaint has to fail and accordingly dismissed with regard to opposite party No. 2. The complaint also fails against opposite party No. 3 as opposite party No. 3 has sent the case within the prescribed period after receiving the application of complainant. It is also dismissed against opposite party No. 1 which was already exparte as it had no role to play in this case. Therefore, this complaint fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. <br /> Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs and the file be consigned.<br /> Pronounced :<br /> 13-01-2010 <br /> (Vikramjit Kaur Soni)<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br /> <br /> <br /> (Amarjeet Paul) <br /> Member <br /> *ik