Chandigarh District Commission Holds Regional Passport Office And Passport Seva Kendra Liable For Delayed Delivery Of Passport

Brief Facts:

Ankit Singla’s (“Complainant”) passport had expired on 10th July 2018. He applied for the renewal of his passport, intending to travel to Australia to visit his brother's family and expand his IT business. In this regard, he planned a trip to Australia with his mother in January 2020. On 7th January 2020, he received an email from the Regional Passport Office indicating that his renewed passport had been dispatched on 6th January 2020, complete with a passport number and tracking number. However, when he attempted to track the passport using the provided tracking number, the system consistently reported no tracking information was available.

Worried about the delay in receiving the passport, the complainant contacted the Indian Postal Office. They informed him that they had not received any such passport. Subsequently, the complainant reached out to the passport authorities for clarification, and each time, he was told that his passport had indeed been dispatched on 6th January 2020. The COVID-19 pandemic and associated lockdowns further complicated the situation, delaying any potential action by the complainant. When the pandemic situation improved in September 2020, he made more inquiries. However, he received the same response, claiming that the passport had been dispatched on 6th January 2020.

Due to not receiving his renewed passport, the complainant was unable to travel abroad as planned in November 2020 for his honeymoon, causing significant inconvenience and suffering for both him and his wife. Despite several attempts, including reaching out to passport authorities through social media, he was unable to obtain any concrete information about his passport's whereabouts.

To address this issue, the complainant used the Right to Information (RTI) Act to seek information from the passport authorities. They responded by once again stating that the passport was dispatched on 6th January 2020. Aggrieved, the complainant filed a consumer complaint in the Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“District Commission”).

The complainant argued that the non-receipt of his renewed passport was a result of the actions of the passport authorities, who repeatedly claimed to have dispatched it on 6th January 2020. He contended that due to the delay in receiving the passport, he and his wife suffered significant personal inconveniences, including missing out on planned travel. The complainant argued that the authorities failed to take responsibility for the situation and did not provide concrete evidence of the passport dispatch.

The passport authorities argued that they had dispatched the passport as indicated in their communications. They contended that the issue might have arisen due to the postal authorities not delivering the passport to the complainant because of a different address. The authorities resisted the complaint on various grounds, including questioning the maintainability of the complaint and the complainant's status as a consumer.

Observations by the Commission:

Firstly, the District Commission emphasized that the burden of proving the dispatch of the passport rested squarely on the passport authorities. However, the authorities failed to produce any tangible evidence, such as postal receipts or dispatch numbers, to support their claim that the passport was indeed dispatched. This absence of substantiating evidence raised doubts regarding the accuracy of their statements. Secondly, the District Commission noted that the complainant received the passport while the complaint was pending. This fact made it evident that he was no longer eligible for the primary remedy he initially sought which was the re-issuance of the passport. However, the District Commission acknowledged the mental agony and harassment endured by the complainant due to the prolonged delay in obtaining his passport resulted in significant personal inconveniences. This experience, in the District Commission's assessment, constituted a clear deficiency in service.

Consequently, the District Commission ruled in favor of the complainant and ordered the passport authorities to compensate the complainant with ₹10,000 for the mental agony and harassment he experienced. Furthermore, the authorities were directed to pay ₹10,000 as litigation costs.

Case: Ankit Singla vs Regional Passport Office

Case No.: CC/190/2022

Advocate for the Complainant: Complainant-in-person.

Advocate for the Respondent: Sh. Indresh Goel for OPs No. 1 & 2; Sh. Chinmay Gupta for OP No.3.

Click Here To Rad/Download Order