Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/45/2020

Gurpiara Dass Aggarwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Regional Passport Officer - Opp.Party(s)

Sumati Jund

17 Aug 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/45/2020
Date of Institution	:	24/01/2020
Date of Decision	:	17/08/2021

 

 

1. Gurpiara Dass Aggarwal s/o Sh. Prem Sagar, aged about 66 years.
2. Kanta Devi w/o Sh. Gurpiara Dass Aggarwal, aged around 64 years;

Both r/o House No.102, Sector 17, Panchkula.

… Complainants

V E R S U S

Regional Passport Officer, SCO 28-32, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh 160022.

… Opposite Party

CORAM :	SHRI RAJAN DEWAN	PRESIDENT
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Ms. Sumati Jund, Counsel for complainants
	:	Sh. Rajneesh Kumar Shelly, Counsel for OP

 

Per Rajan Dewan, President

1.      Allegations in brief are that the complainants – senior citizens – planed a trip to Dubai from 17^th to 22^nd January, 2019 with their family friends after getting requisite visa/ approval from Director of Residency and Foreign Affairs, UAE.  They spent ₹35,164/- for to and fro tickets and ₹22,430/- for hotel and sightseeing. As per plan, the complainants reached the Indira Gandhi International Airport on 17.1.2019 from Chandigarh via Shatabdi and spent ₹2,815/-.  However, when the complainants were about to board the booked flight, complainant No.1 was stopped by Immigration Officer and his passport No.N-6813490 was seized by stating that the passport fell under category of ‘Lost’ travel document. Averred, due to said mistake, complainants could not board their scheduled flight and their whole trip got cancelled.  The complainants had to wait at the airport for long time to get their luggage and came back to Chandigarh via Volvo on 18.1.2019 by spending ₹1,410/-. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP, the complainants have filed the instant consumer complaint.
2.     OP contested the consumer complaint and filed its written reply. Averred, that one Sh.Nikhil Balkrishan Joshi s/o Sh. Sulbha Balkrishna Joshi r/o #40/2, Vandan Paud Phata, Erandv, Pune City had submitted a complaint for loss of Passport and wrongly mentioned the Passport No.N-681349 in the DDR submitted with the Passport Office of Pune whereafter the passport was drilled in the lost list.  The complainant’s passport was seized by the Immigration Authority at New Delhi and sent to the OP due to drill in loss. Maintained, after issuance of memo of seizure, complainant approached the OP and after verifying record new passport bearing No.T-5115822 dated 4.6.2019 was issued to him on gratis basis. OP denied there was any fault on its part.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP prayed for dismissal of the consumer complaint. 
3.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
4.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case, including the written arguments of the OP.
5.     There is no dispute that the complainants planned a trip to Dubai from 17^th to 22^nd January 2019 with their family friends and complainant No.1 was stopped by the Immigration Officer at the airport and his passport No.N-6813490 was seized as the same fell in ‘Lost’ category.
6.     The contention of the complainants, who are senior citizens, is the act of the OP, not only caused a lot of harassment and embarrassment to them but also financial loss as they could not board their booked flight and enjoy the hotels and sightseeing etc. The complainants had made all arrangements for their planned trip to Dubai from 17^th to 22^nd January 2019 and spent ₹35,164/- (Annexure C-1) on tickets for their to and fro journey; ₹22,430/- for hotels and sightseeing (Annexure C-1), spent ₹2,815/- on 17.1.2019 (Annexure C-2) for reaching Indira Gandhi International Airport from Chandigarh through Shatabdi Express for boarding the flight and ₹1,410/- (Annexure C-4) for reaching Chandigarh via Volvo on 18.1.2019. However, all the plans of the complainants were shattered as trip had to be cancelled at the last minute due to negligence of OP/its officials.
7.     The OP in its evasive stand tried to put entire fault on the shoulders of one Nikhil Balkrishan Joshi s/o Sh. Sulbha Balkrishna Joshi of Pune City who had submitted a complaint for loss of Passport and wrongly mentioned the Passport No.N-681349 in the DDR submitted with the Passport Office of Pune and it was only after that the passport was drilled in the lost list.  However, surprisingly OP has not produced on record a copy of the said DDR.  Further, it is not the case of the OP that the alleged passport No. also bore the name of the complainant. It is very surprising that even the Passport No. mentioned by the OP in its reply i.e. “N-681349” is different than the one seized vide seizure memo dated 17.1.2019 (Annexure C-3) and belonged to complainant No.1.  We are of the view that before proceeding to drill a passport in the lost list, it was expected of the OP (its officials) that it should have tallied at least the basic particulars e.g. Passport No., name, father’s name, date of birth etc. In today’s times when everything is available online at the click of button, the approach of the OP was clearly lackadaisical and it cannot be allowed to pass the buck on the shoulders of someone else for its own fault. 
8.     No doubt, the learned counsel for the OP relied upon some case law to argue that issuance of passport is a sovereign function and the Passport Officer cannot be held to be a service provider. However, we are afraid that the same are not applicable in the present case as the issue here is not with regard to issuance of passport or delay in issuance of passport, but, wrong drilling of a passport in the lost list without verifying the complete particulars. The complainants who are senior citizens, and probably in the twilight of their life, had planned a trip to Dubai for their pleasure which went haywire and had to be cancelled due to the fault of the OP/its officials. Therefore, clearly the act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service and it is liable to compensate the complainants.
9.     In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OP is directed as under :-

1. to pay a global compensation of ₹70,000/-, inclusive of the amount spent by the complainants on their tickets/hotel bookings etc. as well as for causing mental agony and harassment to them;
2. to pay ₹7,000/- to the complainants as costs of litigation.

10.     This order be complied with by the OP within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it shall make the payment of the amount mentioned at Sr.No.(i) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(ii) above.
11.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
17/08/2021	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Rajan Dewan]
hg	Member	President