REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER Vs. SANTOSH CHAUHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 5.11.2001 passed by District Forum, Gurgaon, whereby while accepting the complaint of the respondents -complainants direction has been given to the appellant -opposite party that the amount of the fee deposited by the complainants be refunded to them along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposit till payment.

(2.) AS there was a delay of one year 9 days in filing the appeal, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1963) was filed wherein it has been stated that the order dated 5.11.2001 of the District Forum, Gurgaon was not received by the office of the appellant and it came to know about the said order on receipt of summons in a petition filed under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is further pleaded that soon thereafter an application dated 21.10.2002 and another application dated 4.12.2002 were moved to the District Forum, Gurgaon seeking supply of copy of the impugned order. The certified copy of the order was supplied to the appellant on 5.12.2001 and thereafter time was taken to remove the objections raised by the Registry and in this manner the delay resulted in filing the appeal for the above stated period which deserves to be condoned in the interest of justice. Supporting the averments an affidavit of Sg. R.N. Sarkar, Assistant Passport Officer (Policy), Regional Passport Office, HUDCO -Tricoot -3, Bhikajicama Place, R.K. Puram, New Delhi was filed. This application has been opposed from the side of the respondent. In the reply filed by the respondent -complainants it has been averred that certified copy No. 897 dated 5.11.2001 was despatched by the District Forum, Gurgaon vide despatch No. 36 dated (sic.) and it was also duty of the appellant to have obtained the certified copy of the order if they wanted to file an appeal. It was further stated that they have waited for execution of the order for a period of 9 1/2 months and summons of the Executing Court were sent to the appellant on 3.9.2002 which was received on 6.9.2002 and thereafter an application for obtaining certified copy of the order dated 5.11.2001 was moved on 21.10.2002 which further shows a lapse of the period of 5 months and 7 days on the part of the appellant in obtaining the copy for which no explanation has been rendered. Accordingly, it was prayed that the prayer made for condonation of delay deserves to be rejected and affidavit of Mrs. Santosh Chauhan has also been filed along with the written reply sent by post.

(3.) IN this case, how the District Forum has exercised the jurisdiction vested in it illegally in deciding the complaint, a few facts need to be noticed. The case set up by the complainant is that her youngest son and daughter -in -law had been serving in various foreign countries for the last 10 years. As the daughter -in -law being pregnant and was due for delivery in the month of May, 1997, the complainants wanted to look after her during the period of delivery and post operative recupration period, they applied for the passport on 20.1.1997. The application forms complete in all respect, with the security fee of Rs. 300 each, were delivered personally in the office of opposite party. The complainants were made to wait for the issuance of passports and they had also put in appearance in the Lok Adalat held on 11.3.2000 in the office premises of the opposite party but the passports were not delivered to them. In this manner, a period of four years had elapsed but the status report has not been given to them despite the fact that the passports were to be issued within 90 days on submitting of the forms or to intimate the reasons for delay for not issuing the passports to them. Forced by these circumstances, the complainants invoked the jurisdiction of the District Forum seeking direction to the opposite party to issue the passports to them immediately and if for any reason it is not feasible, then the amount deposited be refunded to the complainants along with interest @ 18% per annum. In addition, a compensation of Rs. 50,000 was demanded on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by them.