State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Zalil Khan, Guntur vs District Minority Welfare ... on 26 August, 2011
BEFORE THE CIRCUIT BENCH OF A BEFORE THE CIRCUIT BENCH OF A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT VIJAYAWADA. FA.No.259/2011 against CC.No.188/2009 District Consumer Forum, Guntur. Between Zalil Khan, D.No.12-26-20A, Near ICC building, Zinnah Tower Centre, Guntur. Appellant/Complainant And District Minority Welfare Officer, Collectorate Compound, Guntur-4. Respondent/Opposite Party For the Appellant : Party-in-person. For the Respondent : Respondent appeared in person. QUORUM: SRI R.LAKSHMI NARASIMHA RAO, HONBLE MEMBER, AND SRI T. ASHOK KUMAR, HONBLE MEMBER.
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN.
Oral Order (Per Sri R.Lakshmi Narasimha Rao, Honble Member) *******
1. Complainant is the appellant. The appeal is challenge to the order of the District Consumer Forum, Guntur which dismissed the complaint opining that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
2. The appellant has filed an application under Sec.6 of Right to Information Act with the respondent and the respondent through letter dated 24.02.2009 furnished the information sought for. Having dissatisfied with the information furnished by the respondent, the appellant has preferred an appeal before the appellate authority viz. District Minority Officer, Guntur.
3. The case of the appellant is that he had paid Rs.10/- towards fee as required under the Right to Information Act for the purpose of obtaining information and the respondent as also his appellate authority failed to furnish complete information sought for.
Hence, the complaint.
4. The respondent has resisted the claim contending that the information sought for by the appellant was furnished which contains the information in regard to number of students, name of the courses, amounts paid to the applicants and the amounts sanctioned by the Head Office of the respondent in regard to the training imparted to various students selected therefor.
5. The appellant has filed his affidavit and the documents Exs.A.1 to A.3. On behalf of the respondent neither affidavit nor any document had been filed.
6. The complainant has filed his affidavit contending that the respondent failed to furnish the entire information sought for and the failure of the respondent in providing the information i.e. list of the candidates selected for imparting training amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.
7. The point for consideration is whether the respondent had committed deficiency in service in furnishing the information sought for by the appellant?
8. It is not disputed that the appellant has filed an application on 19.12.2008 seeking information in regard to the courses offered, applications received as also the amounts paid to the applicants who were selected for undergoing training. The respondent through letter dated 16.01.2009 had furnished information that the stipend would be paid depending upon the duration of the course and twenty members for each faculty such as fashion designing, garment making, multi purpose mechanic, house lighting, electrical servicing, health care assistant hospital management, DTP, computer operator, beautician course, refrigeration, air conditioning, pre primary teaching, mobile phone servicing course, accounting, administration, computer hardware, net working, etc. Apart from the aforementioned information, respondent had also intimated to the appellant that the candidates after completing training they have to pay Rs.1,50,500/-.
The information sought for by the appellant though furnished, yet the appellant claims that the entire information was not furnished to him.
9. Admittedly, the appeal preferred by the appellant with the appellate authority under Right to Information Act had been pending and the appellant not waiting the appeal is disposed off nor taking any steps for disposal of the appeal, filed the complaint before the District Forum stating that the total information that was sought for was not furnished. How the complaint is maintainable before the District Forum is not explained by the appellant.
10. During pendency of the appeal before this Commission, the list of candidates selected for training was furnished to the appellant. It is not the case of the appellant that the respondent had not furnished the information at all to him, nor the respondent intentionally withheld the information that was sought for. The appellant had not substantiated as to how he had suffered loss either mental tension or financial loss when he is not interested in the subject matter of the claim before the respondent. The appellant having opted for an alternative remedy under the Right to Information Act by filing the appeal before the District Minority Welfare Officer, Guntur has filed the complaint. Even otherwise, the complaint is not maintainable.
11. We do not see any irregularity or arbitrary element in the order passed by the District Forum. The order of the District Forum does not suffer from any infirmity either in regard to the fact or law. The appeal has no merits.
12. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs of Rs.1,000/- in this appeal.
MEMBER MEMBER Dt:26.08.2011.
vvr.