The Punjab State and Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has observed that the service provided by the airport authorities does not qualify or equate with the definition of “service” as defined in the Consumer Protection Act.
Case of the Complainant
The Complainant instituted a complaint before the District Forum, stating that he applied for the re issuance of his passport however the airport authorities kept deferring the issuance of the passport on some or the futile cause. The Complaint alleged the airport authorities for holding his passport arbitrarily, willfully and without a reasonable cause. Thus being aggrieved by the inaction of the airport authorities in performing their obligation, the complaint sought directions to the authorities to issue his passport on immediate basis and to also pay compensation of Rs80,000/ and Rs 15,000/ as litigation expenses. The District Forum entertained the compliant and directed the authorities to issue the passport to the complainant.
Case of the Airport Authorities
The Regional Passport Office, filed an appeal wherein the issue considered by the State Commission was whether the complainant falls within the ambit of definition of “Consumer “and whether the services provided by the passport authorities come under the definition clause of Consumer Protection Act defining the term “ services”.
Observation of the State Commission
Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President of the State Commission while citing the various judgments of the Supreme Court and National Commission observed that the complaint made by the complainant with respect to the deficiency of airport authorities in providing their services does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Consumer Protection act, thus neither the complainant qualifies as consumer nor the authorities services as “service” mentioned in the Act.
The bench referred to the decision of the National Commission in the case of S. Vijaykumar v. Regional Passport Officer wherein it was held that the issuance of passport is a statutory function and the Passport Office cannot be held to be a “Service Provider” and thus the complaint made under the Act for delaying in issuance of the passport would not be maintainable.
In the words of the bench “The issuance of the passport or making any correction in it by the Central Government or by any authority empowered under the passport Act is a sovereign act, this has to be performed by the authorities according to the prescribed rules. Every passport application passes through prescribed internal security procedures as well as the same is investigated through the security agencies, such as police and CID etc. The Passport also provides for impounding /refusal revocation and appeal procedures under section 6, 10,11 of the said Act. The passport is very important document as per the provisions of the said act, it is to be issued or any correction is to be made by the Passport Officer after satisfying himself about a number of facts. If while verifying a thin line of suspicion appears, the Passport Officer can be said to be justified in refusing to issue the passport or effecting corrections therein. Moreover as per Section 17 of that Act, a passport at all times remains the property of the Central Government and, as such, no one can claim it as a matter of right.
Case Details
Before: State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab
Case Title: Regional Passport Office v Gurpreeet Singh Mangat
Bench: Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President State Commission
Date of Decision: 19.06.2020
Read Order @LatestLaws.com
