State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Public Information Officer, Tamil Nadu ... vs Thavasimuthu, S/O. Thangavel Nadar, ... on 19 September, 2013
IN THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MADURAI BENCH.
Present: Thiru.A.K.. ANNAMALAI, M.A. M.L., M.Phil., Presiding Judicial Member
Thiru.S. SAMBANDAM, B.Sc., Member
F.A.No.460/2012
(F.A.No.310/2012 on the file of State Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Chennai.)
(Against the order in C.C.No.103/2011, dated 01.03.2012 on the file of DCDRF,
Tuticorin)
THURSDAY, THE 19th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013.
Public Information Officer,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,
Tiruchendur. Appellant/Opposite Party
Vs
Thavasimuthu,
S/o. Thangavel Nadar,
No.36, Poovarasur Salai,
Gandhi Street, Arumuganeri,
Tuticorin District. Respondent/Complainant
For Appellant/Opposite Party : Served. Called absent.
For Respondent/Complainant : In person
This appeal coming before us for final hearing on 23.08.2013 and on
hearing the arguments of the Respondent side and upon perusing the material
records this Commission made the following:
ORDER
Thiru. A.K. ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.
2
1. The opposite party is the appellant.
2. The complainant had sought for certain information from the opposite party under the RTI Act on 18.08.2011. After receiving application, the opposite party has not sent any reply till filing of the complaint. The opposite party purposely failed to furnish the information sought for by the complainant which defeats the very purpose for which the Act has been enacted. Hence, the complainant has filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum claiming direction to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and for costs.
3. The District Forum after perusing both sides' materials and after an enquiry allowed the complaint by directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.3000/- as costs.
4. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the opposite party has come forward with this appeal contending that the District Forum erroneously allowed the complaint even though the petitioner had sought for certain particulars for which certain informations were called for from the complainant in order to furnish the details but the complainant has not given any information by way of reply and the complainant has to seek his remedy before the appellant authority under the Right to Information Act and approached wrong jurisdiction before the Consumer Forum and the complaint has been filed in order to get unlawful monetary benefit from the opposite parties and thereby the appeal to be allowed.
3
5. When the appeal is taken up for final hearing, the appellant failed to appear before this Commission in spite of specific direction given.
6. We have heard the arguments of respondent and also gone through the written statement submitted by the respondent/complainant and order being passed on merits on the basis materials placed before us in this regard. It is not dispute that the complainant had sought for certain details from the opposite party under RTI Act for which the reply was not given till the date of filing of complaint. The opposite party alleges that the complainant sought for certain details under the RTI Act and to furnish the correct details certain information were sought from the complainant but the complainant did not reply. Further, it is contended that the complainant has to approach the appellate authority under the RTI Act for grievances in not getting the particulars sought for. In this regard, we are inclined to observe that this Commission has already decided in similar matters in various appeals and as per the provisions, under section 19 of the Act, the complainant cannot file the complaint before the Consumer Forum but to seek remedy only under the RTI Act under section 19 of the Act, which states as follows:
" Appeal - (1) Any person who, does not receive a decision within the time specified in sub-section (1) or clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 7, or is aggrieved by a decision of the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may within thirty days from the expiry of such period or from 4 the receipt of such a decision prefer an appeal to such officer who is senior in rank to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, in each public authority".
7. Further, this Commission has already held in various cases that Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the cases arise under the Right to Information Act, 2005. In the recent case of the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in its Revision Petition No.3636 of 2012 in the case of B. Vasudeva Shetty -Vs - The Chief Manager, The Kota Co-operative Agricultural Bank, Ltd., dated 25.02.2013 in which in paragraphs 13 & 14 it is held as follows:
"13. Even on merits, the petitioner has no case, State Commission in the impugned order observed "6. First of all it is the duty of the appellant to prove that, there existence any relationship of a "Consumer" and "Service Provider" with the respondent. So under the RTI Act, the appellant is entitled to see a required information for his benefit as the respondent is a public officer. If the required information or copies are not furnished then the remedy is available for him to approach the Appellate Authority under the RTI Act. First of all, the complaint filed before the DF in our view is not maintainable. No doubt that, in para-22 of he order, the DF has referred a decision reported in ILR 2010 Karnataka 3214 5 in that case the party involved was Bangalore International Air Port Ltd., Vs Karnataka Information Commission and others and rightly held that the ration laid down in the aforesaid decision will not come to the aid of the appellant/complainant.
7. In this connection we would like to refer to the decision rendered by the Hon'ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.1250/2010 in the case of S.N. Subramanya Vs Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike wheein the Hon'ble National Commission has held that the party should always approach the Appellate Authority against the alleged action of the respondent/statutory authority. In the case of T. Pundalkka Vs Revenue Department (Service Division), Government of Karnataka dated 21.03.2011 passed in Revision Petition No.4061/2010 the National Commission held that, petitioner cannot be claimed to be a consumer under the C.P. Act. There is a remedy available for him to approach the Appellate Authority under Section 19 of the RTI Act. Therefore, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, followed by this Commission in various cases, the DF is right in dismissing the complaint filed by the very appellant. Hence, we don't see any perverse or incorrect findings recorded by the DF". 6
14. The RTI Act is a Code in itself. It provides for remedies available under this Act to a person who has been denied any information. Since, petitioner has specific remedy available to him under the RTI Act and which he has already availed the present consumer complaint does not lie under the Act. "
7. The Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad, in the case of L. Madhusudhan Reddy Versus The Tahsildar-cum-Deputy Collector Mandal Revenue Office, reported in CDJ 2013 APSCDRC 308 has held that " Now it is to be seen whether the Consumer Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. In a decision in RP No.4061/2010 between Pundalika Vs Revenue Department (Service division), Government of Karnataka dt. 31.03.2011 arising under RTI Act, 2005 the Hon'ble National Commission opined that the District Forum and other Tribunals constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, have no jurisdiction and a complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986, pertaining to the provisions of RTI Act does not lie. It was held in the said decision that; "As an alternative efficacious remedy provided under the very RTI Act, their Lordship observed that the C.P. Act has no jurisdiction to the disputes arising under RTI Act. Obviously when the complainant could not get requisite information from his own officers, he cannot turn around and say that the opposite parties are guilty of not providing information. The contention that the Consumer Protection Act 7 overrides RTI Act cannot be upheld. In the light of Sec.22 of RTI Act, it cannot be said that the provisions of C.P. Act overrides the RTI Act which reads as follows: Section 22. Act to have overriding effect - The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923) and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. The said decision is latest one directly on the subject and it is binding on this Commission."
8. Hence, in this case also, we are of the view that the District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under the RTI Act and the relief under the RTI Act 2005 for which specific remedy is available under the same Act and thereby the order of District Forum which is erroneously passed is liable to be set aside.
9. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order of the District Forum, Tuticorin passed in C.C.No.103/2011 dated 01.03.2012 is hereby set aside and the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs in this appeal.
The Registry is directed to refund the mandatory deposit already made, in favour of the appellant/opposite party with accrued interest after due discharge.
Sd/-S. SAMBANDAM, Sd/-A.K. ANNAMALAI,
MEMBER. PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
INDEX: YES / NO
TCM/Mdu Bench/Orders- 2013/Sep