HENRY LAWRENCE Vs. PASSPORT OFFICER, PASSPORT OFFICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this Revision Petition under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act (in short "the Act") is to the order dated 29.07.2013 in First Appeal No. 788/2012, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kerala (in short "the State Commission"). By the impugned order, the State Commission had dismissed the Appeal preferred by the Revision Petitioner and concurred with the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Delhi (in short, "The District Forum").

(2.) The District Forum vide order dated 15.11.2011 had allowed the Complaint in part, holding that there was inordinate delay in despatch / delivery of the Passport and awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-. The Passport Office did not challenge this order and only the Complainant had challenged before the State Commission by filing an Appeal before the State Commission against the Passport Office. Hence, the finding of the State Commission as observed by the District Forum has attained finality.

(3.) The facts in brief are that the Complainant, while serving in Army in Navi Mumbai, applied for a Passport on 28.12.2006 and on enquiry was informed by the third Opposite Party that the Passport would be issued by the second Opposite Party, after receiving the enquiry verification reports from the local and Thiruvananthapuram Police as he did not complete one year service in Navi Mumbai. The third Opposite Party also gave a reference No. bearing SB No. 22253, dated 30.01.2007. It was averred that in May, 2007, the local police visited the Complainant's residence in Navi Mumbai. The Complainant was to retire in the year 2009 and hence wrote a letter to the second Opposite Party requesting them to dispatch his Passport to his permanent home address, as shown in the Application. It was averred that the second Opposite Party had acknowledged this letter on 28.05.2007.