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
No comments:
Post a Comment