Delhi

StateCommission

A/270/2019

MRS. KAMLESH DEVI & ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

KSHITIJ MUDGAL

10 May 2019

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments : 10.05.2019

Date of Decision : 15.05.2019

FIRST APPEAL NO.270/2019

In the matter of:

 

 

1. Mrs. Kamlesh Devi,

W/o. Shri Vijay Pal,

R/o. House No.405,

VPO Ghevra,

New delhi-110081.

 

2. Mr. Arun Rana,

S/o. Shri Vijay Pal,

R/o. Magistratsvagen 11 A,

Lgh 1201,

222643 Lund, Sweden.………Appellants

 

 

Versus

 

1. Union of India,

Ministry of Home Affairs,

Bureau of Immigration,

Through its Commissioner,

Office at East Block-VIII, Level-V,

Sector-1, R.K. Puram,

New Delhi-110066.

 

2. Air India

Through its CMD,

Safdarjung Airport,

Aurobindo Marg,

New Delhi-110003.……..Respondents

 

 

CORAM

Hon’ble Sh. O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                                      Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                           Yes/No

Shri O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

JUDGEMENT

 

1. Challenge in the present appeal is to order dated 11.12.18 passed by District Forum dismissing the  complaint at the stage of admission itself.
2. I have carefully gone through the impugned order and heard counsel for appellant for the purpose of admission. I find that the order passed by the District Forum is quite reasoned.
3. The appellant no.1 who is NRI & is mother  of appellant no.2 was to travel from Delhi to Sweden on 17.01.18 by Air India flight bearing no.AI-167. She reached terminal no.3 of the IGI Airport and checked in at the counter of respondent no.2. Thereafter, she proceeded towards the immigration desk, which is arranged through Bureau of Immigration, Union of India/ respondent no.1. She was not allowed to board the flight. Her luggage was returned to her at around 18.00 hours and she returned home. Thereafter appellant no.2 came to  Delhi on the very next day and enquired about the reason for not allowing his mother to travel. No specific reason for denial was given.
4. Appellant no.1 had to travel to Sweden with appellant no.2 on 19.01.18 on a new ticket purchased by appellant no.2. This time, with the same set of documents, she was allowed to travel by respondent no.1. Her visa was valid for six months from 15.12.17. In reply to application under RTI Act respondent no.2 informed appellant no.2  that appellant no.1 was de-boarded on 17.01.18 as there was delay in clearance on immigration desk and she was not cleared to travel by respondent no.1. It was also informed that there was no provision/ guidelines to compensate the passenger, if the passenger is denied  boarding by immigration desk.
5. The appellants filed writ petition no. WP(C) 7428 of 2018 before  Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. Vide its  order dated 20.07.18. Hon’ble High Court disposed of the writ petition with the directions to respondent no.1 to conduct an enquiry to ascertain the person responsible for causing distress to appellant no.1. On the issue of  compensation the High Court granted liberty to the appellants to institute an appropriate proceeding as the issue involved disputed question of facts.
6. It is in pursuance of the above order of the Hon’ble High Court  that complainants filed complaint before the District Forum which was dismissed.
7. The District Forum found that appellant relied upon decision in Lucknow Development Authority vs. M.K. Gupta (1994) 1 SCC 243, Ghaziabad Development Authority vs. Balbir Singh (2004) 5 SCC 65 and Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs. Shiv Kumar Joshi (2000) 1 SCC 98.
8. The District Forum distinguished  decision in M.K. Gupta and Balbir Singh on the ground that there private undertakings were taken by the government or corporations.
9. Decision in Shiv Kumar Joshi was distinguished on the ground that in the said case the issue was whether the person is consumer if consideration is paid by someone else on his behalf but services are availed by the person on whose behalf the consideration is paid.
10. I feel that immigration authority was discharging its statutory function and was not rendering any services. So appellant no.1 was not a consumer. On analogical grounds reliance can be placed on decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.P. Goel vs. Collector of Stamps I (1996) CPJ 111 where it was held that Sub-Registrar is not covered under Consumer Protection Act. Similar view was taken by the M.P. State Commission in the case of Kusum Aggarwal I (2003) CPJ 111.
11. In The General Manager Madras Telephones and Others vs. R. Kannal I (1994) CPJ 14 NC held that Municipal Committee is not covered under Consumer protection Act. In Dy. Engg., G.E.B. and others vs. Baldev Bhai A.Patel I (2004) CPJ 64 it was held that statutory functions are beyond Consumer protection Act.
12. In Haj Committee of India vs. Abbas Ali IV (2018) CPJ 520 NC held that Haj Yatra is not covered by Consumer protection Act.
13. In Satpal Saini vs. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board 1 (2019) CPJ 60 NC held that RTI is not covered under Consumer Protection Act.
14. To me it appears that appropriate proceeding referred to in the order of Hon’ble High Court is civil suit for recovery of damages.
15. In view of the above discussion the appeal fails and is dismissed.
16. Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
17. One copy of the order be sent to District Forum for information.
18. File be consigned to record room.

 

(O.P. GUPTA)                                                     

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)