Failure to return the old passport after renewal does not constitute deficiency in service if the complainant fails to establish any loss due to the non-return of the old passport.

Mr. Justice M.R. Agnihotri, President— This appeal has been filed against the order dated 5th of July, 1994 passed by the learned District Forum, Yamuna Nagar, whereby the complaint has been allowed by awarding a sum of Rs. 2000/- as damages against the Opposite parties-appellants, on the ground mat they failed to hand over the old passport of the complainant Mehnga Singh while getting the same renewed from the Regional Passport Office, Chandigarh.

2. Complainant Mehnga Singh approached Harbhajan Singh Johar Opposite Party No. 1 for getting his old passport renewed from, the Regional Passport Officer, Chandigarh. Alongwith the application for the renewal of the passport, old passport was also handed over to the Opposite Party. However, when the passport was renewed and handed over to the complainant, the old passport was not returned to the complainant. For that reason, the complainant approached the District Forum claiming compensation of Rs. 20,000/- from the Opposite Party.

3. In the written statement filed by the Opposite Party No. 1, it was pleaded that the complainant had got his passport renewed’ through Opposite Party No. 3 M/s Gobind Travels. It was also pleaded that all the papers received from the complainant including the old passport were filed alongwith the application for renewal of passport with the Regional Passport Office, Chandigarh and were returned to him after the needful work done.

4. Learned District Forum after examining the matter and on the basis of the material produced before it, came to the conclusion, that the old passport was not returned to the complainant, therefore, the complaint was allowed and a sum of Rs. 2000/- was awarded as damages against the Opposite parties Nos. 1 & 3.

5. In the appeal before us, it has been contended by the appellants (Opposite parties Nos. 1 & 3) that there was no deficiency in service on their part, as whatever was handed over to them by the complainant was submitted to the Regional Passport Officer, Chandigarh alongwith the application for the renewal of the passport; and after the renewal of the passport the documents were returned back to the complainant respondent. For that reason, the impugned order awarding damages against them was untenable in law. On 9th of September, 1994 a notice of the appeal was issued to the respondent for 20th of October, 1994. On that day neither the respondent nor his learned Counsel was present. Thereafter, when it came up for hearing before us today, again nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent.

6. After hearing the learned Counsel for the appellants and having gone through the material, we do not find any evidence on record to prove the fact, that the old passport of the complainant was returned by the Regional Passport Office, Chandigarh to the appellants after the renewal of the passport for returning the same to the complainant. Moreover, it is not the case of the complainant-respondent that as the old passport was not returned to him, he had suffered any loss in getting the Visa on the basis of the new passport. Therefore, the complainant has failed to establish any deficiency in service on the part of the appellants. Consequently, we allow this appeal, set aside the order of the learned District Forum and dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs

Appeal allowed.

_