REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER vs V.RAMANI BAI

THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 28.8.1996 in O.P. No. 479/95 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (South).

THE appellant is the opposite party while the respondent is the complainant. In this action, we rather feel to pen down such of those essential facts necessary for arriving at a just decision while entering into the arena of discussion relating to the question involved.

The complainant, it appears, applied for an international passport after paying the necessary and requisite fees. The passport so applied was not at all granted by the opposite party despite the elapse of several months. The complainant, feeling aggrieved with the non-issue of the passport for pretty long, knocked at the doors of the Forum below, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and prayed for certain reliefs by the institution of a complaint.

THE opposite party, in turn, in pith and substance contended that the complainant cannot at all be construed to be a consumer availing the services of the opposite party for consideration and, therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The District Forum after taking into consideration the materials placed on record, however, recorded a finding that the complainant is a consumer and the opposite party committed deficiency in service on his part in the sense of not issuing the necessary and requisite passport to the complainant for pretty long. On the findings so recorded, the Forum below directed the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- for mental agony and hardship suffered by the complainant with cost of Rs. 500/- giving a month''s time for the compliance from the date of its order.

AGGRIEVED by the order as above, the opposite party resorted to the present action by engaging a Counsel of their choice namely M/s. C.K. Vishnupriya. On service of process, the respondent/complainant entered appearance through a Counsel of his choice namely Mr. A. Abdul Rahim and N. Vijayalakshmi. When this matter came up for hearing before us on 4.10.2000 learned Counsel Mr. C.K. Vishnupriya, appearing for the appellant is absent and no representation is made on her behalf. The fact that the said learned Counsel appearing for the appellant is absent does not mean that we cannot dispose of the appeal on merits, of course, after hearing arguments of learned Counsel appearing for the respondent and on perusal of the records and that is exactly what we have done in the instant case.

ARGUMENTS of learned Counsel M/s. A.R. Sujatha, repreenting learned Counsel Mr. Abdul Rahim and Vijayalakshmi, appearing for the respondent/complainant were heard. We also perused the records.

EVEN at the outset, we may point out that the order of the Forum below is not at all sustainable in law. The reasons are rather obvious. The recording of the finding by the Forum below that the complainant must be construed to be a consumer within the relevant provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, "the Act") is rather erroneous on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. The opposite party who is Regional Passport Officer, Madras-6, is a Government servant. He is on the pay rolls of the Government. He is performing the functions required to be performed by him in the capacity of a Government servant. The service rendered by him in issuing passports cannot at all be construed to be a service for any consideration paid by a person like the complainant. In this view of the matter, the complainant can never be construed as a consumer falling within the definition of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act and that apart the service rendered by the opposite party in issuing passports on receipt of the necessary and requisite fees cannot at all be construed to be service for consideration as adumbrated in Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act. The order of the Forum below is, therefore, not sustainable in law. The appeal as such deserves to be allowed.

In fine, the appeal is allowed; the order of the Forum below is set aside and the complaint itself is dismissed. We however make no order as to costs on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. Appeal allowed.