Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
AVM J. Rajendra, AVSM VSM (Retd.), Presiding Member
Passport Office and Anr. – Petitioners
versus
Ira Sharma – Respondent
Revision Petition No.1758 of 2023
(Against the Order dated 01/03/2023 in Appeal No. A/474/2019 of the State Commission Delhi)
Decided on 16.2.2024
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 58(1)(b) – Services – Passport Services – Non issuance of Passport – By way of Approval from competent authority – Whether amounts to deficiency of Service – A person applying for issue of a passport does pay a consideration in the form of fee prescribed. This consideration is paid for the expenses incurred in the activities post passing of the order, directing/approving issuance of passport to the applicant. This fee is not for meeting the expenses involved in the process of the Passport Officer deciding whether the passport should be issued to the applicant. Therefore, going by the definition of the terms ‘service’ and ‘consumer’ contained in the Consumer Protection Act, a person applying for a passport would be a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act–In case he is aggrieved from a defect or deficiency including an unjustified delay in the services rendered to him by the Passport Office, post decision/approval of the passport officer to issue a passport to the individual, such activities would include printing, preparation, dispatch and delivery of the passport – Thus, it is an established position in the present case that the competent authority has not approved the issue of the passport to the Complainant. When it was approved, she was immediately issued and there is no grievance in this regard. Further, the change in the system from NIC to other portal, if any, is a Government level decision and it does not alter her status. While there is no timeline prescribed for mandatory issue of passport, the accusations of not responding to her emails, not preferring any fresh complaint, her alleged refusal to withdraw the complaint before the learned District Forum, her previous application remaining on the portal even after she was issued a passport etc are of limited relevance to the main issue in question – On facts, Complaint dismissed as not maintainable. [Paras 10 to 26].
Result: Petition dismissed.
ORDER
The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) against impugned order dated 01.03.2023, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 474 of 2019. In this appeal, the Petitioners/ Opposite Parties appeal was dismissed, thereby affirming/upheld the Order dated 01.05.2019, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VII, (South-West District), Delhi, (the “District Commission”) in Consumer Complaint No. 485 of 2013 wherein the complaint filed by the Complainant/Respondent was allowed.
2. There was a delay of 53 days in filing the present Revision Petition. For the reason stated in the Application seeking condonation of delay bearing No. IA/9449/2023, the delay is condoned.
3. For convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the original Complaint filed before the District Commission.
4. Briefly, the facts of the case, as per the Complainant are that she applied for a passport (File No. A029679) on 06.05.2011 along with requisite fee of Rs. 1,000/- to the passport office. However, the OP1 failed to issue the passport within the stipulated three-months period. Despite numerous emails sent by the Complainant, no response was received. In the interim, the Complainant’s father filed a Right to Information (RTI) request to the Public Information Officer (PIO) on 30.04.2012, which was responded to on 25.05.2012. The RTI reply indicated that the Application status was “pending as the Police Verification Report from SSP Bangalore was awaited.” Dissatisfied, an appeal to the Appellate Authority was made, but the response stated that no further action was warranted on the RTI request. Subsequently, an appeal was filed with Central Information Commission (CIC) on 31.01.2013, receiving the following response: “The fact remains that the passport applicant could not get a passport even after two years of her applying for it, and now her case is closed. The system should be more responsive in such cases and should have the arrangement to inform the passport applicant whose application is being filed or closed for whatever reason”. The Complainant further contended that due to the non-issue of passport, she lost a career opportunity with ‘Deloitte’ (MNC). Perceiving the actions of the Opposing Parties (OPs) as deficient in service, she filed Consumer Complaint No. 458 of 2013, seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for loss of professional opportunities, Rs.10,000/- for mental agony, and Rs.1,000/- towards litigation costs.
5. In response, the OPs raised an objection, contending that the Complainant is not a consumer. They explained that the case underwent local police verification, and due to the Complainant’s stay being less than 1 year, the verification could not be completed. The verification report from the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) Bangalore was pending, leading to the delay in decision on issue of passport. Additionally, they emphasized that no specific timeframe is prescribed for passport issuance, and it was only granted upon receiving a clear police verification report, contingent on all other documents being in order. The closure of file No. A29679/11 in the National Informatics Centre (NIC) system and the introduction of new computer system at TCS were cited as reasons for no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Further, OPs alleged that the Complainant attempted to conceal accurate information. The OPs prayed for the dismissal of the complaint, along with the exemplary costs.
6. In her Rejoinder, the Complainant stressed that she qualifies as a consumer having made a payment of Rs.1,000/- as fees for issue of passport. The OPs failed to communicate the closure of the file under the National Informatics Centre (NIC) system to the Complainant. As of 14.06.2013, the official website s
Passport – Going by the definition of the terms ‘service’ and ‘consumer’ contained in the Consumer Protection Act, a person applying for a passport would be a consumer as defined in the Consumer Prot....
(1) Repeal of law – The repeal of a law shall not affect the previous operation of any enactment i.e. the proceedings under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 shall continue for cases which had been filed....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
