Complainant alleged that despite repeated visits to the VFS office and enquiries, he could not get the passport. (Image generated using AI)A consumer commission in Punjab has directed VFS Global Services Private Limited to either return a man’s original passport or bear the entire cost of obtaining a new/duplicate passport after finding the company guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for allegedly failing to return the document after his Canadian tourist visa application was rejected.A bench comprising president Ashish Kumar Grover and members Urmila Kumari and Navdeep Kumar Garg also directed the company to pay Rs 20,000 as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs 10,000 towards litigation expenses.“We find that by not returning the original passport of the complainant besides taking the charges of courier service for tracking of passport is clear cut deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP No. 1 (VFS),” the order dated June 12 read.The commission has directed compliance with the order within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.Passport not returnedThe complainant alleged that he had applied for a Canadian tourist visa through VFS Global on July 31, 2018, paying Rs 1,247 towards processing and courier charges.He contended that VFS assured him that his original passport would be returned through courier irrespective of whether the visa application was approved or rejected.The complainant stated that after his visa application was rejected, the passport was never returned.Story continues below this adHe alleged that despite repeated visits to the VFS office and enquiries, he could not get the passport.According to him, VFS initially advised him to contact the courier company. He further alleged that VFS later informed him that unclaimed passports were sent to the PSP Division of the Ministry of External Affairs and assured him that efforts would be made to retrieve the passport.After failing to get the passport, he moved consumer forum.The courier company contested the complaint, arguing that the complainant had failed to provide any airway bill or consignment number that would enable it to trace the alleged shipment. It also denied providing any service to the complainant.Story continues below this ad‘Unfair trade practice’The commission noted that the complainant had produced the receipt showing payment of visa processing and courier charges, a copy of his passport, and emails sent seeking the return of the passport.It observed that VFS, despite being served, chose not to appear before the commission or file any written response to rebut the allegations.The commission noted that the absence of VFS from the proceedings proved that they had nothing to say against the allegations of complainant and indirectly admitted the claim of the complainant.It further observed that the complainant had proved his case beyond any doubt by way of tendering cogent, convincing and reliable evidence on file.“OP No. 1 remained exparte and did not bother to come forward to contest the case and evidence produced by the complainant which otherwise seems to be genuine,” it remarked.The commission held that by not returning the original passport of the complainant, besides taking the charges of the courier service for tracking of the passport, was a clear-cut deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.Relief to consumerThe commission dismissed the complaint against the courier company and the Ministry of External Affairs, observing that the complainant had failed to produce any reliable evidence to establish that he had availed services from either of them.It therefore partly allowed the complaint and directed VFS to return the original passport to the complainant or bear all the expenses for obtaining a new/duplicate passport for the complainant.It further directed to pay an amount of Rs 20,000 as compensation for causing mental torture, agony and harassment and Rs 10,000 as litigation expenses to the complainant.Significance of this judgmentThe ruling emphasises that visa facilitation service providers remain accountable for safeguarding and returning applicants’ original documents, regardless of the outcome of the visa application. The decision also makes clear that where a service provider cannot return such an essential document, it may be directed to bear the full cost of obtaining a replacement, in addition to compensating the consumer for the mental agony and inconvenience caused.Story continues below this adFor consumer-related grievances, individuals may contact the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 or 1800-11-4000 for assistance.Ashish Shaji is a Senior Sub-Editor at The Indian Express, where he specializes in legal journalism. Combining a formal education in law with years of editorial experience, Ashish provides authoritative coverage and nuanced analysis of court developments and landmark judicial decisions for a national audience. Expertise Legal Core Competency: Ashish is a law graduate (BA LLB) from IME Law College, CCSU. This academic foundation allows him to move beyond surface-level reporting, offering readers a deep-dive into the technicalities of statutes, case law, and legal precedents. Specialized Legal Reporting: His work at The Indian Express focuses on translating the often-dense proceedings of India's top courts into clear, actionable news. His expertise includes: Judicial Analysis: Breaking down complex orders from the Supreme Court and various High Courts. Legal Developments: Monitoring legislative changes and their practical implications for the public and the legal fraternity. Industry Experience: With over 5 years in the field, Ashish has contributed to several niche legal and professional platforms, honing his ability to communicate complex information. His previous experience includes: Lawsikho: Gaining insights into legal education and practical law. Verdictum: Focusing on high-quality legal news and court updates. Enterslice: Working at the intersection of legal, financial, and advisory services. ... Read More Tags:consumer court