Mr. Justice S.A. Kader, President—This is a complaint under Sec. 17 read with Sec. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

2. The complainant applied for a passport on 7.10.91 and paid a fee of Rs. 70/-. The police enquiry was over in the month of November, 1991. Subsequently on 16.9.92 the complainant was asked to produce two more copies of photographs. He sent 3 attested copies and 2 unattested copies of photographs by registered post on 7.10.92. The complainant received another letter on 3.2.93 for furnishing photographs without any marking. He sent them by registered post on 27.2.93. There was no response and issued a suit notice on 15.9.93. He finally received passport on 14.10.93. There was deficiency of service and hence the claim for damages in the sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-.

3.The opposite party contended that the complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act. The services rendered by the passport office are merely statutory and their is no contractual liability and it does not come within the purview of the Act. It is further contended that Sec. 16 of the Passport Act of 1967 is a bar to the maintainability of any claim against the Government or any officer or any authority for anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done under the Passport Act. On merits, it is contended that the application was received on 7.10.91 and the passport was prepared and signed on 20.6.92. It was subsequently found that the photographs of the complainant were missjng and the complainant was requested on 27.6.92 to send his photographs. There was no response. Another communication was sent on 16.9.92. The complainant sent 2 photographs’ on 7.10.92 pasted on separate sheets signed by Gazetted Officer with date stamp affixed on the face of the photographs. These photographs could not therefore be used. A fresh communication was sent to the complainant on 3.2.93 for sending passport size photographs without any attestation and they were received on 24.2.93. They were affixed in the passport already prepared and sent to the complainant. The delay was not wilful. The claim of compensation is unconscionable.

4. Exhs. A1 to All are marked.

5. The points that arise for determination are:

(1) Whether the complaint is maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act?

(2) Whether the claim is barred in view of Sec. 16 of the Indian Passports Act?

(3) Whether there has been any deficiency of service or negligence on the part of the opposite party and to what compensation, if any, is the complainant entitled?

6. Point No. 1: It is contended on behalf of the opposite party that he has been performing the statutory functions under the Passport Act and is not rendering any service within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act and the complaint is not maintainable. The argument is no longer available in view of the latest landmark judgment of the Supreme Court in Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, III (1993) CPJ 7 (SC) where the learned Judges have held that the word ‘service’ has variety of meanings. It may mean any benefit or any act resulting in promoting interest or happiness. It may be contractual, professional, public, domestic, legal statutory etc. The Supreme Court went further to observe that:

“A Government or semi-government body or a local authority is as much amenable to the Act as any other private body rendering similar service. Truly speaking, it would be a service to the society if such bodies instead of claiming exclusion, subject themselves to the Act and let their acts and omissions scrutinised, as public accountability is necessary for healthy growth of society.”

We therefore hold that the Consumer Protection Act is applicable even in respect of acts done under statutory provisions like the Passports Act and answer of this point is in favour of the complainant.

7. Point No. 2: The opposite party relies on Section 16 of the Passports Act of 1967 and contends that merely on the ground that there has been de