C.C.NO.256/2009

Friday, the 4th day of December, 2009

Miss.D.Nisha Ferona Mary

D/o. Mr.Dhanaraj,

No. 26/3, Thmarai Nagar,

4th Street, Kaundampalayam,

Coimbatore – 641 030. --- Complainant

Vs
1.The Passport Officer,

Regional Passport Office,

Corporation Complex,

Uppilipalayam,

Coimbatore – 641 018.

2. The Passport Officer,

Regional Passport Office,

Shastri Bhavan, Chennai. -- Opposite Parties



This case coming on for final hearing before us on 6.11.09, 12.11.09, 26.11.09 and 1.12.09 in the presence of “Mahesh Associates”,Mr.P. Maheshkumar Advocate for complainant and Mr.T.A.Selvaraj, Advocate for the opposite parties and upon perusing the case records and hearing the arguments and the case having stood over to this day for consideration, this Forum passed the following:

ORDER

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking direction against the opposite parties to immediately issue the passport to the complainant, to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for the deficiency in service caused by them and to pay towards cost of the proceedings.

The averments in the complaint are as follows:

1.The complainant had applied a fresh passport to the 1st party’s office on 31.03.2008 and had paid the appropriate fees vide cash receipt No. 001472 and file No. Z 354001 by way of D.D. No. 408453 dated 31.03.2008 drawn on State Bank of India, Coimbatore, for a sum of Rs.1,000/-. Subsequently after applying few days latter, the police officials had came to the complainant’s residence for enquiry and had completed their enquiry. The 2nd opposite party had sent back the D.D applied by the complainant and also a letter was enclosed stating that the validity of the D.D had expired and to resent a fresh D.D once again. The complainant once again took a fresh D.D on 15.11.2008 for a sum of Rs.1,000/- drawn on State Bank of India and resent the D.D as per the request of the 2nd opposite party. The complainant had approached the 1st opposite party several times regarding her passport.

2. After several repeated demands made by the complainant, the 1st opposite party had directed the complainant to the 2nd opposite party as the application has forwarded to the 2nd opposite party for further process and also advised the complainant to approach the 2nd opposite party in person for any enquiry respective to the complainant’s passport. The complainant also approached the 2nd opposite party in Chennai in the end of December 2008 regarding this issue. But initially the complainant was not even allowed to meet the passport officer and made the complainant wait for several hours. On assurance of the 2nd opposite party, the complainant had returned to Coimbatore and waited for a month for her passport. But the passport has not been issued as per assurance of the 2nd opposite party, the complainant once again approached them after 30 days once again they had seek further time of 20 days as final. But still now the passport has not been issued to the complainant and had caused untold mental agony and hardships. The complainant is a consumer and the 1st and 2nd opposite parties are the service provider. The complainant issued a legal notice on 25.05.2009 through his lawyer to the 1st and 2nd opposite parties to that effect. But even after receipt of the notice, the opposite parties have neither replied nor have turned up to compensate for the same and to do the needful. Hence this complaint.

The averments in the counter are as follows:

3. The complainant has no cause of action and he is not entitled to any relief. The purported complaint as against the opposite parties is a mockery of the due process of law and this Honourable Forum. Such like complaints tend to undermine fine reputation built up by opposite parties over the years. The District Passport Cell, Collector’s Office, Coimbatore has referred the matter to the Superintendent of Police, Coimbatore rural for verification of antecedents and identify verification report. After due verification, the report was sent back to the District Passport Cell, Coimbatore. On receipt of clear police verification report form the police authorities, the District Magistrate and Collector, Coimbatore made their certification on 29.07.2008 and the same was forwarded to opposite party thereafter and the application was received in August only after 5 months from the date of application.

4. Further there was huge volume of passport application from various districts passport Cells of the jurisdiction of the 2nd opposite party the application could not be taken up for process till October 2008. The issuance of Passport is not an ordinary form and has to be done with due care and diligence since its discrepancy can cause high complications and all the formalities have to be carried out in its due course and cannot be hurried up as passport is a vital document.

5. The delay in issue of passport in this case is mainly due to the increase in the inflow of passport applications more particularly under Tatkal Scheme which is a time bound issue. Further, there is an acute shortage of staff which hinders speedy disposal of the case. There is no deficiency in service provided to the complainant. Hence the compensation demanded by the complainant is liable to be rejected. The passport offices do not come under the purview of service provider. Further the passport has already been issued to the complainant on 8.7.09 hence the grievance of non issuance of passport does not hold good.

6. The complainant and opposite parties have filed Proof Affidavit along with documents Ex.A1 to A4 was marked on side of the complainant and Ex.B1 and B2 was marked on the side of the opposite parties.

The point for consideration is

Whether the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service? If so what relief the complainant is entitled to?

ISSUE 1

7. The case of the Complainant is that the complainant had applied for fresh passport to the District Passport Cell on 31.3.08 along with a DD

for Rs.1000 and that there was delayed process on the side of the opposite parties due to which the complainant had to apply for fresh DD 6 months later, that even after several repeated visits and requests the opposite parties not issued the passport. Only on 8.7.09 he received the passport from the opposite parties that too after filing of this complaint.


8. The case of the opposite parties is that the complainant is not a consumer and the opposite parties are not service providers and the dispute is not a consumer dispute. The further contention of the opposite parties is the delay in issuance of passport in this case is mainly due to the increase in the inflow of passport applications and due to acute shortage of staff which hinders speedy disposal of the case. Hence there is no deficiency in service.

9. The passport has already been issued to the complainant on 8.7.09 and this was accepted by the complainant in his P.A. of para 9.

The authorities filed by the opposite parties……….

Before Appeal NO.11 OF 1996 Pondicherry Forum order dt.12.9.1996-

G.THANGAVEL

Vs.

ANURADHA THADIPATHRI GOPINATH

The authorities perused by this Forum in

RP No.2389 of 2008 or.dt.10.7.08 of NCDRC, New Delhi

Regional Passport Officer, Bangalore

Vs.

Anuradha Thadipathri Gopinath

10. Admittedly the complainant has paid a charging fees of Rs.1000 on 31.3.08 drawn on State Bank of India, Coimbatore and the same was sent back to the complainant by the 2nd opposite party and once again the complainant took a fresh DD on 15.11.08 drawn on State Bank of India, Coimbatore and resent the DD as per the request of the 2nd opposite party. Hence the opposite parties have received a consideration. Hence he is a service provider and the complainant is a consumer within the meaning of sec.2(1)(d).

11. The Honble National Commission has held in RC 2389/08

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the Passport Officer, while issuing the passport, was exercising sovereign function. In our view, this contention is totally baseless. There is no question of exercising sovereign function. He was discharging a statutory duty.....

He further submitted that the officer was discharging his duties without recovering any fee and, therefore, this would not be a consumer dispute……

Admittedly, the petitioner is charging fee for issuance of passport and, hence, service is availed by paying fee.

In the present case also the opposite party has received necessary fees hence the opposite parties are service providers and the complainant is a consumer.

ISSUE NO. 2

12. In the present case the payment of fees was paid on 31.3.08 the same was returned by the 2nd opposite party on 3.11.08 and the same was resent on 15.11.08, only on receipt of legal notice dt. 25.4.09 the passport was sent on 8.7.09 ie. the complainant has received his passport after 15 months. There is an inordinate and unexplained delay on the part of the 2nd opposite party. Only after receiving the legal notice they have taken steps and finally issued passport on 8.7.09. In the meantime the complainant was directed by the 1st opposite party to approach the 2nd opposite party in person for enquiry. Complainant also approached the 2nd opposite party in Chennai during 2008. Inspite of his personal appearance the 2nd opposite party has not taken immediate action, only on receipt of legal notice dt.25.4.09 they have taken action and issued passport. The above instances are enough to consider that the act of the 2nd opposite party is nothing but deficiency in service. Hence the complainant is entitled to get a reasonable compensation for the deficiency of service of the 2nd opposite party.

13. In the result, we direct the 2nd opposite party to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.10,000 towards compensation for mental agony and cost of Rs.1000 to the complainant within one month from the date of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute this order u/s.25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This complaint as against the first opposite party is dismissed.

Pronounced by us in Open Forum on this the 4th day of December, 2009.