BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PRESENT
SRI. P. SUDHIR : PRESIDENT
SMT. R. SATHI : MEMBER
SMT. LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
C.C. No. 271/2009 Filed on 09.10.2009
ORDER DATED: 16.03.2017
Complainant:
Sreedharan Udayan, S/o Sreedharan, T.C 27/1307, Lilly, Rishimangalam, Vanchiyoor P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. S. Pradeep Kumar)
Opposite parties:
- Passport Officer, Passport Office, SNSM Building, Karalkada Junction, Kaithamukku, Thiruvananthapuram.
- The Port Registration Officer, International Airport, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. N. Mohanan Pillai)
This case having been heard on 03.02.2017, the Forum on 16.03.2017 delivered the following:
ORDER
SRI. P. SUDHIR: PRESIDENT
Complainant’s case is that the 1st opposite party has issued Passport bearing No. A 546388 dated 09.05.1991 to the complainant after accepting the prescribed charge from the complainant and after complying all procedural formalities. For getting the passport the complainant has paid the amount required by them under law. That passport bearing No. A 546388 was subsequently lost from the complainant. The complainant has approached the 1st opposite party and applied for issuing a fresh passport stating true facts. The 1st opposite party has received an amount of Rs. 1,000/- from the complainant for issuing the new passport. The opposite party has impounded an amount of Rs. 5,000/- also from the complainant for issuing passport vide letter dated TVM/346/IMP/06/POL/2002 dated 24.06.2002 and passport bearing No. E 2751977 dated 07.11.2002 is issued in continuation of the passport bearing No. A 546388. The complainant is in possession of the passport bearing No. D 2751977 from 07.11.2002. With that passport the complainant went to Singapore in December 2002 from Trivandrum International Airport. During that journey the opposite parties have not raised any objection with respect to the complainant’s passport. On 01.08.2009 the complainant has a previously fixed business meeting with Cambridge School Authorities, at Doha, Qatar. For the above journey the complainant reached at International Airport, Thiruvananthapuram on 31.07.2009 at 3 am. The Air Ticket arranged for the journey was that of Qatar Airways. But to the complainant’s utter disappointment the officers attached to 1st and 2nd opposite party illegally withheld the passport of the complainant at Thiruvananthapuram International Airport under the instructions of 1st and 2nd opposite party. They have not stated any reason for illegally withholding complainant’s passport. The opposite party has treated the complainant as a criminal and they harassed the complainant before the public. They treated the complainant like a passenger who travels with fabricated and forged passport. The attitude of the opposite parties towards the complainant in presence of public has caused great mental agony and hardships to the complainant. Due to the illegal withholding of passport by the opposite parties the complainant cannot go to Qatar and he cannot enter into agreement with Cambridge School Authorities at Doha in Qatar. On 31.07.2009 the 2nd opposite party has illegally withheld the passport of the complainant and complainant was not permitted to travel on 31.07.2009. The opposite parties have not returned the complainant’s passport after verification. The 2nd opposite party and his subordinates have harassed the complainant and subjected him to mental cruelty. The act of the opposite parties has caused great loss and hardships to the complainant. On 31.07.2009 itself complainant has given his complaint to the 1st opposite party regarding the illegal withholding of the original passport belonging to him. But 1st opposite party has not taken any action on it and opposite parties have released the passport of the complainant only on 03.08.2009. Due to the illegal act of the opposite parties the complainant has sustained great loss and hardships. If the complainant reached at Doha in Qatar as per this air ticket arranged by him he could sign the contract for Rs. 3 crores with the Cambridge school authorities at Doha. While returning the passport on 03.08.2009 the opposite parties have not given any explanation for the illegal retention of the complainant’s passport for 3 days. The complainant has obtained the passport from the 1st opposite party after paying due consideration. So complainant has every right to travel with it to foreign countries. The opposite parties are bound to provide proper service to the complainant for his smooth travel. There is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The opposite parties as a public functionary acted maliciously and their exercise of power results in harassment and agony to the complainant. The opposite parties have abused their power. The behavior of the opposite parties towards the complainant is arbitrary and capricious. Harassment adopted towards the complainant by opposite party is illegally impermissible. The opposite parties have not acted honestly or bonafidely. The opposite parties are responsible for loss caused to the complainant and are liable to compensate the complainant. They are legally bound to compensate the complainant for the loss sustained to him. Hence complainant approached this Forum for getting compensation and cost.
Notice sent to opposite parties. Opposite parties appeared and contested the case. As per version the contention of opposite parties is that the complainant was a holder of Passport No. A 546388 dated 09.05.1991 issued from the Passport Office at Cochin. Thereafter the complainant obtained another Passport No. T 233674 dated 22.12.1994 from the 1st opposite party Passport Office, Thiruvananthapuram based on an application dated 17.11.1994. The possession of dual passport in his name was detected and on verification it was found that the incumbent suppressed the facts of his previous passport No. A 546388 issued from Cochin on 09.05.1991. It was therefore decided to revoke the passports of complainant under Sec. 10(3)(b) of the Passports Act 1967. Accordingly a show cause notice No. 99/085649/94 (Policy) dated, 05.10.1999 was issued by registered post and required him to furnish his explanation along with the original of the above said Indian passports within fifteen days from the date of notice. The complainant ignored the said show cause notice and retained the passports in his custody. Thereafter it was decided to revoke both passports and the decision was intimated to him through a registered letter of even number dated 03.02.2000. It was specifically stated therein that the restoration of passport facilities could be considered by this opposite party’s office if the complainant would approach the passport office authorities in time. Since the complainant had not turned up, all the Passport issuing authorities in India, Indian Missions and Posts abroad, all check post authorities in India, Director of Intelligence Bureau New Delhi, Ministry of External Affairs (PV-I) & (PV-III) respectively at New Delhi were given directions to seize the passports if found or presented to them vide message No. TVM/346/IMP/06/POL/2002 dated 24.06.2002. Thereafter the complainant made a request dated 30.05.2001 addressing the Passport Officer, Thiruvananthapuram to restore the passport facilities in favour of him along with a certificate issued by the Sub Inspector of Police, Museum police station, Trivandrum showing that the passport No. A 546388 was missed during the first week of November, 1994. It is pertinent to note at this juncture that the complainant lodged the complaint regarding missing of passport only in 2001 during when the process of taking action including criminal case was going on against him. Thereafter the passport No. T 233674 dated 22.12.1994 was also surrendered to the passport office at Thiruvananthapuram. The complainant made repeated requests to the 1st opposite party to take a lenient view regarding the action proposed to be taken against him, pursuant to which it was decided to abstain from registering criminal case under Sec. 12(1) of the Passports Act 1967. The matter was settled by imposing a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- and the complainant was therefore allowed to remit the penalty amount enabling him to apply for a duplicate passport in lieu of his erstwhile passport No. A 546388. It is submitted that all these facts pertaining to the matter in issue are lacking in the body of the complaint but clandestinely averred that this opposite party impounded an amount of Rs. 5,000/- from the complainant. The complainant in fact lodged the complaint before the police authorities regarding the missing of passport No. A 546388 only after the passport authorities found fault with the complainant for obtaining and retaining dual passports No. A 546388 and E 2751977. The complainant could not make a satisfactory explanation regarding the possession of the said passports. However criminal case was not registered against the complainant as a lenient view was taken by the passport officer holding the office at that time. The allegation that the officers of the 1st opposite party along with the 2nd opposite party withheld the passport of the complainant on 31.07.2009 is not true to facts and therefore denied. In this respect it is submitted that the present passport was issued to the complainant on a lenient view taken by the passport officer and the same was issued on the strength of a letter dated 18.07.2002 advising the complainant to obtain a duplicate passport. The seizure of the passport was informed to the 1st opposite party on 03.08.2009 by way of letter No. 610/PRO/TVM/AP/2009 dated 01.08.2009. Immediately after the receipt of information the passport was released and delivered to the complainant under due acknowledgement on 03.08.2009 itself. The allegation otherwise that the passport officer has not taken any action on the subject is patently irregular, absolutely baseless and hence denied. The allegation that the opposite parties had illegally withheld the passport of the complainant on 31.07.2009 and that he was not permitted to travel on 31.07.2009 is false and the circumstances explained herein before would justify the action of the opposite parties in that regard. The complainant who was involved in an offence under Sec. 10(3)(b) of the Passports Act 1967 ought have been considered as a doubtful person but the passport authorities set him free from the liabilities and exonerated from the charges leveled against him. The 2nd opposite party is required to act with utmost vigilance and due care and is empowered to seize passports on doubts regarding its validity and the suspicious actions of the custodian of the passports. The complainant’s case history regarding possession of dual passports casts reasonable doubts and hence due verification in the matter was indispensable and hence the seizure was bonafide. There was no delay on the part of 2nd opposite party in proceeding with the matter. Admittedly the succeeding days 01.08.2009 and 02.08.2009 to 31.07.2009 were holidays and hence the action on the file could have been completed only on 03.08.2009. The passport officer then and there with due care and diligence completed the formalities and procedure on 03.08.2009 on which day the passport was received by him. Immediately the same was released under acknowledgement along with letter No. TVMC/17333/02/POL/09 dated 03.08.2009. The complainant who was undoubtedly involved in an offence for possession of two passports at a time against all rules and regulations existing in force has no authority whatsoever to obtain any explanation as averred in complaint. No hard and fast rule regarding compliance of time limit could be prescribed by him in the matter as he was personally aware of the circumstances and the limitations due to indispensable procedures to be completed in his case. However there was no delay occurred in the matter in between the dates 31.07.2009 to 03.08.2009. The opposite parties are not liable to compensate any loss alleged to have sustained by him. In fact no cause of action exists enabling him to file a complaint of this nature. There was no willful latches or deliberate intention on the part of the opposite parties and there existed no deficiency in rendering service to the complainant. The passport officer or the functioning of the passport office do not fall under the category of the service as defined under the Consumer protection Act 1986 and hence the complaint is not maintainable by invoking jurisdiction of this Forum. The issue of passport and the allied services are not the cause of action falling under the category of service to be impugned and this Forum lacks jurisdiction to entertain such complaints.
Issues:
- Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
- Whether any loss sustained by the complainant due to deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for?
Issues (i):- Complainant filed chief examination affidavit and examined as PW1. Ext. P1 to P9 marked. PW1 cross examined by the opposite parties. As per the deposition “Ext. P1 shown: ആയതിന്റെ No. E 2751977 ആണ്. ടി P1-ന്റെ date of issue 07.11.2002 ആണ്. Ext. P1 original ആണോ duplicate ആയി കിട്ടിയതാണോ (Q) Duplicate ആണ് (A) Duplicate passport issue ചെയ്യുന്നതിന് 1st opposite party മുമ്പാകെ നിങ്ങള് ഒരു അപേക്ഷ കൊടുത്തിരുന്നോ (Q) അതെ (A) ടി duplicate P1 passport ഏത് passport –ന് പകരമാണ് ആവശ്യപ്പെട്ടത് (Q) 1991-ല് issue ചെയ്ത A 546388 dated 09.05.1991 എന്ന passport-ന് പകരമാണ് (A). ‘91-ലെ passport എന്നാണ് നഷ്ടപ്പെട്ടത് (Q) 94 October-November-ലാണ് (A) Agent വഴി duplicate passport-ന് അപേക്ഷിച്ചതും 94-ലാണ്. 22.12.1994-ലെ T 233674 എന്ന passport ലഭിക്കുന്നതിനാണ് അപേക്ഷ agent വഴി ഏത് passport office-ലാണ് കൊടുത്തത് (Q) TVM passport office-ല് (A) Duplicate എന്നത് ഒന്നിന് പകരം എന്ന് പറഞ്ഞാല് ശരിയാണ് T 233674 എന്ന passport ലഭിക്കുന്നതിന് കൊടുത്ത അപേക്ഷ 09.05.1991-ലെ A 546388 എന്ന നമ്പര് ഉള്ള Cochin-ല് നിന്നും issue ചെയ്ത passport-ന് പകരമാണ്. 10.11.1994-ല് T 233674 എന്ന passport-ന് ആധാരമായ അപേക്ഷ കൊടുത്തത് (Q) അതെ (A) copy shown: ടി അപേക്ഷയാണ് താങ്കളെ കാണിച്ചത് (Q) അതെ (A) marked as Ext. D1 നിങ്ങള് duplicate passport-ന് അപേക്ഷിച്ചപ്പോള് ആദ്യം കിട്ടിയ A 546388 എന്ന passport ലഭിച്ചതായോ കൈവശം ഉള്ളതായോ ഈ അപേക്ഷയില് പറഞ്ഞിട്ടില്ല എന്ന് പറയുന്നു (Q) Travel agent-ന്റെ കൈ യില് നിന്നാണ് miss ആയത്. ഞാന് Travel agent-നോട് കാര്യം പറഞ്ഞിരുന്നു. Duplicate passport-ന് വേണ്ടി form അവര് പൂരിപ്പിക്കാതെ തന്നെ ഒപ്പിട്ട് വാങ്ങിക്കൊണ്ട് പോയി. അവര് ഇതിനെക്കുറിച്ച് പറഞ്ഞിട്ടുണ്ടോ എന്നറിയില്ല (A) Ext. D1 shown: D1 passport അപേക്ഷ പ്രകാരം duplicate passport –ന് അല്ല മറിച്ച് പ്രത്യേകമായി ഒരു പുതിയ passport-ന് വേണ്ടിയാണ് Trivandrum passport office-ല് അപേക്ഷ കൊടുത്തത് എന്ന് പറയുന്നു (Q) ഞാന് duplicate –നാണ് കൊടുത്തത്. Duplicate & original-നും ഒരു അപേക്ഷയാണ് എന്നാണ് പറഞ്ഞത്. ഞാന് agent –നെയാണ് എല്ലാം ചെയ്യാന് ഏല്പിച്ചത് (A) 91-ലെ A 546388 എന്ന passport Sreedharan Udayan എന്ന ആളിന്റെ പേരി ല് നിലവി ല് ഉണ്ടായിരിക്കെ ആ വസ്തുത മറച്ചു വച്ച് 10.11.1994-ല് TVM passport officer മുമ്പാകെ അപേക്ഷ നല്കി T 233674 dated 22.12.1994 എന്ന passport-ഉം രണ്ടാം തവണ ഒരേ സമയം Sreedharan Udayan എന്ന ആളിന്റെ പേരില് ലഭ്യമാക്കിയതിനാല് Passports Act പ്രകാരം കുറ്റമാണ് എന്ന് കണ്ട് 05.10.1999-ല് 99/85649/94/policy എന്ന number-ല് ഉള്ള TVM Passport Officer-ടെ show cause notice താങ്കള്ക്ക് തന്നിട്ടുണ്ട് എന്ന് 1st opposite party പറയുന്നു (Q) ഒരു കത്ത് വന്നിരുന്നു. അതനുസരിച്ചാണ് പോയത് (A). ടി notice-ന് മറുപടി കൊടുത്തോ (Q) ഞാന് നേരിട്ട് ഹാജരായി. മറുപടി കൊടുത്തിട്ടുണ്ടോ എന്ന് അറിയില്ല (A)”. PW2 was examined on the side of the complainant to prove Ext. P9 that was quotation for Rs. 1,16,00,000/-. PW2 cross examined by opposite parties. It is admitted by PW2 that he is not the signatory of Ext. P9. DW1 filed chief examination affidavit and cross examined by complainant. In his deposition DW1 deposed that “Ext. P1 നിലവിലുള്ള പ്പോള് അദ്ദേഹത്തെ തടഞ്ഞു വെയ്ക്കാ൯ 1st opposite party-ക്ക് അവകാശമുണ്ടോ (Q) ഇല്ല (A). 07.11.2002-ല് Ext. P1 passport issue ചെയ്തത് നഷ്ടപ്പെട്ട passport-ന്റെ മറ്റ് നടപടികള് അവസാനിപ്പിച്ചത് കൊണ്ടല്ലേ (Q) ശരിയല്ല (A) നഷ്ടപ്പെട്ട passport എവിടെ കണ്ടാലും seize ചെയ്ത് forward ചെയ്യണം എന്നാണ് Ext. D6 പ്രകാരം ആവശ്യപ്പെട്ടിട്ടുള്ളത്. Ext. D6 പ്രകാരം Ext. P1 passport ആണോ പിടിച്ചെടുക്കാന് പറഞ്ഞത് (Q) അല്ല (A)”. In page No. 6 of deposition of DW1, “2nd opposite party-യോട് doubt ഉള്ള passport പിടിക്കാനാണോ പറഞ്ഞത് (Q) നഷ്ടപ്പെട്ട passport പിടിക്കാനാണ് പറഞ്ഞത് (A) അങ്ങനെയെങ്കില് Ext. P1 പ്രകാരം യാത്ര ചെയ്ത വാദിയെ 2nd O.P തടഞ്ഞത് ന്യായവിരുദ്ധമല്ലേ (Q) നിയമവിരുദ്ധമാണ്. Ext. P1 തടഞ്ഞു വെയ്ക്കാന് പാടില്ലാത്ത passport ആണ്”. As per Ext. D6 it is to seize the passport No. A 546388 as the passport reported to be lost. But 2nd opposite party seized the passport No. E 2751977. So we find deficiency of service is on the part of 2nd opposite party and not on the part of 1st opposite party.
Issues (ii) & (iii):- To prove the loss sustained by the complainant PW2 was examined by the complainant to prove Ext. P9. But in deposition PW2 deposed that he is not the signatory of Ext. P9. Complainant failed to prove the loss of business. Apart from that complainant has sustained mental agony and unable to travel on 31.07.2009 and restoring of passport facility was done only after 3 days. That is to be compensated. Perusing the documents and evidence. As per Ext. D6 letter what is required is that to seize the impounded/revoked passports if found or presented to you for any service in Ext. D6 page No. (5) passport No. A 546388 dated 09.05.1991 i.e complainant’s passport which was lost above was required to be seized when found or presented to for service. There was no direction by 1st opposite party to 2nd opposite party to seize Ext. P1 passport bearing No. E 2751977 dated 02.11.2002. So seizure of Ext. P1 passport of the complainant is totally illegal. So we are of the opinion that there is deficiency of service on the part of 2nd opposite party in non-complying Ext. D6 and seize the legal passport of the complainant, thereby complainant suffered mental agony and hardship. We are of the opinion that 1st opposite party is exonerated and 2nd opposite party is directed to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the complainant for the mental agony and hardship suffered by the complainant and also to pay Rs. 5,000/- as costs of this proceedings.
In the result, complaint is partly allowed and 2nd opposite party is directed to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-to the complainant for the mental agony and hardship suffered by the complainant and also to pay Rs. 5,000/- as cost of this proceedings within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which Rs. 1,00,000/- carries interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of default till realization. 1st opposite party is exonerated.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 16th day of March 2017.
Sd/-
P.SUDHIR : PRESIDENT
Sd/-
R. SATHI : MEMBER
Sd/-
LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
jb
C.C. No. 271/2009
APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:
PW1 - Udayan. S
PW2 - N. Balachandran Pillai
II COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:
P1 - Copy of passport and other documents
P2 - Letter dated 20.05.1994 sent by Joint Director General of Foreign
Trade
P3 - Copy of cash memo dated 29.07.2009
P4 - Copy of pass book
P5 - Copy of letter dated 18.07.2002 issued to complainant
P6 - Copy of letter issued by Port Registration Officer dated 31.07.2009
P7 - Copy of letter dated 03.08.2009 issued to complainant
P8 - Copy of e-mail dated 22.05.2009
P9 - Quotation dated 10.07.2009
III OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:
DW1 - P.V. Mathew
DW2 - Siju. S
IV OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:
D1 - Copy of passport application form
D2 - Copy of letter dated 30.05.2001sent by complainant to Passport
Officer.
D3 - Showcause notice 05.10.1999 issued by 1st opposite party
D4 - Copy of passport impounding order dated 03.02.2000
D5 - Copy of certificate dated 28.04.2001
D6 - Copy of letter issued by 1st O.P dated 24.06.2002
D7 - Copy of cash receipt dated 26.07.2002 & passport application form
D8 - Copy of letter sent by complainant to 1st O.P
D9 - Copy of letter dated 01.08.2009 sent by 2nd O.P to 1st O.P
D10 - Copy of letter dated 03.08.2009 sent by 1st O.P to complainant
D11 - Copy of order dated 20.12.2012
D12 - Copy of Office Order No. 15/2012 dated 01.11.2013
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
