State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
G.A. Kumar vs Public Information Officer on 25 October, 2013
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No. 61 of 2012
Date of institution : 16.01.2012
Date of decision : 25.10.2013
G.A. Kumar, H.No.3, Street No.1, Sidhu Colony, Bhadson Road,
Patiala.
.......Appellant- Complainant
Versus
1. Public Information Officer o/o Deputy Commissioner, Patiala.
2. Public Information Officer o/o S.D.M. Rajpura.
3. Public Information Officer o/o Tehsildar, Rajpura.
......Respondents- Opposite Parties
First Appeal against the order dated
13.12.2011 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President.
Shri Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member.
Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Shri G.A. Kumar (In Person). For the respondents : Shri Sandeep Wadhawan, Advocate. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH, PRESIDENT :
The appellant/complainant has preferred the present appeal against the order dated 13.12.2011 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala (in short, "District Forum"), vide which the complaint filed by him under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") for issuance of directions to the respondents/opposite parties to supply the information/copies of documents asked for in the RTI application dated 8.8.2011 and to First Appeal No.61 of 2012. 2 pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- for the mental harassment caused to him and for forced litigation, was dismissed.
2. As per the averments made by the complainant, in his complaint, he is a "consumer" by way of hiring services of the opposite parties by paying the requisite fee for the supply of requisite information. He moved RTI application dated 8.8.2011 to opposite party No.1 for furnishing information/copies of documents in respect of the land situated in Halqa Rajpura, detailed in para no.2 of the complaint. The application was forwarded by that opposite party to opposite party no.2, vide letter dated 17.8.2011, for supply of information directly to him. That opposite party, vide letter dated 2.9.2011, which was received by him on 6.9.2011, directed him to collect the information on any working day after depositing the requisite fee. He, vide application dated 7.9.2011 sought information about the fee/charges of the information, which was never replied. Opposite party No.3, vide letter dated 23.9.2011, asked him to intimate the number of the deed and mutation regarding the land in respect of which the information was required. The letters so received by him are contradictory as he was informed by opposite party No.2 that the information was ready and the same could have been collected by him after paying the requisite fee whereas opposite party No.3 asked for the said information. Though four months have lapsed, yet the information has not been supplied to him, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
First Appeal No.61 of 2012. 3
3. The District Forum, vide impugned order, rejected the complaint, without giving notice thereof to the opposite parties, on the ground that there was no deficiency in service attributed to opposite party No.3 and that opposite party No.2 had already asked the complainant to collect the information sought by him by virtue of the application mentioned in the complaint.
4. We have heard the complainant in person and learned counsel for the opposite parties and have carefully gone through the records of the case.
5. The complainant has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission rendered in Revision Petition No.1975 of 2005 decided on 28.5.2009 (Dr. S.P. Thirumala Rao v. Municipal Commissioner). He argued that it is very much clear that a person seeking information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 is a "consumer" and the authorities under the Act are the service providers and for any deficiency in service committed by them compensation is to be awarded.
6. On the other hand, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that the Right to Information Act, 2005 has overriding effect over the Act. The complainant was to seek his remedy under the Act of 2005 itself and he cannot approach the Fora under the Act of 1986.
7. According to Section 22 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, the provisions of the Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in Official Secret Act, 1973 and any other law for the time being in force. That Act is a complete Code in First Appeal No.61 of 2012. 4 itself. A person deprived of his right to information by the authorities under the Act of 2005 can prefer an appeal under Section 19 thereof. Section 20 deals with the penalties which can be imposed where it is found that without any reasonable cause the application seeking information under the Act of 2005 was not received or the request for information was denied mala fidely. In Dr. S.P. Thirumala Rao's case (supra) these were the provisions of the Karnataka Right to Information Act, which were under consideration. That very judgment was discussed in the subsequent judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission rendered in Revision Petition No.4061 of 2010 decided on 31.3.2012 (T. PUNDALIKA v. REVENUE DEPARTMENT (SERVICE DIVISION), GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA). In that case, the Hon'ble National Commission agreed with the following observations recorded by the State Commission:-
"At the outset it is not in dispute that complainant had filed an application u/s 6 & 7 of the Right to Information Act to the OP No.4. But complainant cannot be considered as a consumer as defined under the C.P. Act since there is a remedy available for the complainant to approach the appellate authority u/s 19 of the RTI Act, 2005."
8. While approving that observation of the State Commission, it was held by the Hon'ble National Commission that the petitioner cannot be claimed to be a "consumer" under the Act as remedy was First Appeal No.61 of 2012. 5 available to him to approach the appellate authority under Section 19 thereof.
9. In view of the ratio of this judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission, we conclude that the complainant does not fall within the definition of "consumer" as defined under the Act. His remedy was to file an appeal under Section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The complaint was correctly rejected by the District Forum and we do not find any illegality or infirmity in that order. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.
10. The arguments in this case were heard on 10.10.2013 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
11. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH) PRESIDENT (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON) MEMBER (MRS. SURINDER PAL KAUR) October 25, 2013 MEMBER Bansal