consumer complaint in case of adverse police complaint

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Amulya Chandra Majumdar vs Chief Passport Officer on 25 October, 2007

  
 
 
 
 
 
 IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI
  
 
 
 
 







 



 

IN THE STATE COMMISSION:   DELHI 

 

(Constituted under section 9 clause (b) of the Consumer Protection
Act, 1986) 

 

  

 


 Date of decision: 25.10.2007 

 

  

  Appeal No.07/572 

 

(Arising
from the order dated 14.06.2007 passed by District Forum(South West) Sheikh
Sarai,   New Delhi
in Complaint Case No.325/2007) 

 

  

 

Sh. Amulya Chandra Majumdar  Appellant  

 

B-460, Bhumiheen Camp,  

 

Near DDA Flats, Kalkai,  

 

  New Delhi.  

 

  

 

Versus

 

  

 

1.

Chief Passport Officer Respondent Bhikaji Cama Place, R.K. Puram, Nw Delhi.

 

2. Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, Govt. of India, Patiala House, New Delhi.

 

3. Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi.

   

CORAM:

Justice J.D. Kapoor, ... President Ms.

Rumnita Mittal Member    

1.           Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?

2.           To be referred to the Reporter or not?

 

Justice J.D. Kapoor, President(ORAL)  

1.                                         Respondent applied for renewal of his passport on 26.03.2001 and deposited requisite fees. He was not issued the renewed passport. Rather adverse passport verification was received by the respondent on 18.02.2002, on the basis of which file was closed. Consequently the appellant filed the instant complaint before District Forum seeking direction for renewal of the passport.

2.                                         Vide impugned order dated 14.06.2007, the complaint was dismissed, firstly on the ground that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and secondly that the dispute relating to grant of passport does not fall within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

3.                                         Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal.

4.                                         As regards the view of the District Forum that grant of passport or renewal thereof does not fall within the ambit of consumer disputes is wholly erroneous as section 2(1)(o) encompasses service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical, or other energy, board of lodging or both, [housing construction] entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service.

5.                                         Whenever a person applies for passport, he does so against consideration and therefore such a service is available to the potential users. If there is any lapse of delay in processing the application, the service provider, which in this case is passport issuing authority has to be held guilty for deficiency in service and made liable to compensate the consumer for the mental agony or harassment suffered by him.

6.                                         However, in the instant case, we find that the reply received from the regional passport office reveals that verification report was called from Dy. Commissioner pf Police (Special Branch) Delhi and thrice incomplete passport verification report was received, as the appellant was not available whenever the verifying officer visited his address and therefore the adverse inference was drawn by the passport authority.

7.                                         In our view the finding of the District Forum that this was not a deficiency on the part of respondent was reasonable conclusion. However, at the same time we feel that whenever the regional passport office seeks assistance of police and has no wherewithal of its own to verify the antecedents of the person it has to impress upon the police that they should make enquiry from the neighbours if the applicant is not available on visits, may be due to his being busy in office or having gone out of station and he shall be contacted on telephone particularly in case of renewal of passport, and only then submit the report and any report which has no element of verification and is submitted because of non-availability of the person who had applied for the passport should not be treated as negative report.

8.                                         However, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the Dy. Commissioner of Police (Special Branch) to submit proper report and give time and date by way of notice to the addressee as to verification of his antecedents as the police official may be visiting the residence of the person in the odd hours when the person is busy in official work and has been away from the home and submit a report to the regional passport office who shall reconsider the matter for renewal of the passport.

9.                                         The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.

10.                                     Copy of this order be sent to the Dy. Commissioner of Police (Special Branch) for compliance of the order.

11.                                     Appeal is disposed of in above terms. Order shall be complied with within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

12.                                     Bank Guarantee/FDR, if any, furnished by the appellant be returned forthwith.

13.                                     A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.

Announced today on 25th day of October 2007.

    (Justice J.D. Kapoor) President       (Rumnita Mittal) Member Tri