State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Assistant Public Information Officer vs Balraj Kalra on 3 August, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. : 151 of 2012 Date of Institution : 04.05.2012 Date of Decision : 03.08.2012 Assistant Public Information Officer, O/o Punjab Financial Corporation, SCF No. 95-98, Bank Square, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh. Appellant V e r s u s Balraj Kalra, aged 73 years R/o B-X/724, Lajpat Nagar, Kotkapura, ....Respondent Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Argued by: Sh. Ajay Sapehia, Advocate for the appellant. Sh. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- First Appeal No. : 152 of 2012 Date of Institution : 04.05.2012 Date of Decision : 03.08.2012 Assistant Public Information Officer, O/o Punjab Financial Corporation, SCF No. 95-98, Bank Square, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh. Appellant V e r s u s Balraj Kalra, aged 73 years R/o B-X/724, Lajpat Nagar, Kotkapura, ....Respondent Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Argued by: Sh. Ajay Sapehia, Advocate for the appellant. Sh. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondent. BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT. MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER
PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER(RETD.), PRESIDENT
1. This order shall dispose of the aforesaid two First Appeal Nos.151 of 2012, tilted as Assistant Public Information Officer Vs. Balraj Kalra, and 152 of 2012, titled as Assistant Public Information Officer Vs. Balraj Kalra, arising out of the common order dated 09.04.2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), in Consumer Complaint Nos.496 of 2011, titled as Balraj Kalra Vs. Assistant Public Information Officer and 721 of 2011 titled as Balraj Kalra Vs. Assistant Public Information Officer, vide which, it accepted both the complaints, and directed the Opposite Party (now appellant), as under:-
In view of the foregoing discussion, observations as well as cited case laws, we are of the considered opinion that the present complaint must succeed.
Therefore, the same is accordingly allowed. The OP is directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant for causing him mental agony and physical harassment by rendering deficient services as well as indulging into unfair trade practice, besides paying litigation cost to the tune of Rs.5000/-.
Similarly, the connected complaint case bearing No.721 of 2011 Balraj Kalra Vs. Asstt. Public Information Officer, P.F.C., also stands allowed, in above terms, and the OP is directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant for causing him mental agony and physical harassment by rendering deficient services as well as indulging into unfair trade practice, besides paying litigation cost to the tune of Rs.5000/-.
The order be complied with by the OP within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which it shall be liable to pay the above compensation amounts along with interest @12% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint as well as above mentioned connected complaint i.e. w.e.f. 29.8.2011 & 8.12.2011 respectively, till its actual payment, besides paying litigation costs as aforesaid.
2. The facts, in brief, of Consumer Complaint No.496 of 2011, run in the manner, that the complainant, applied for some information, from the Punjab Financial Corporation, Chandigarh, under the Right to Information Act, 2005, on 27.6.2011. On 18th July, 2011, the complainant received the information vide letter dated 14.07.2011, from the Punjab Financial Corporation, through ordinary post, whereas he had requested that the information be supplied through Regd. Post & the necessary cost of stamps, was sent, in the shape of Indian Postal Order worth Rs.35/-. It was stated that the information, which was sent by the Assistant Public Information Officer of the Punjab Financial Corporation, was misleading & irrelevant, in as much as, the cost of land was clubbed with the cost of property, by the Punjab Financial Corporation. It was further stated that the statement of account printed on 17.06.2011, sent by the Assistant Public Information Officer of the Punjab Financial Corporation, vide letter dated 21.6.2011, also related to the cost of the whole building/property(including the cost of building & land). It was further stated that despite his best efforts, the complainant could not sort out the cost of land plus interest, from the statement of account, sent by the Assistant Public Information Officer of the Punjab Financial Corporation. It was further stated that the Punjab Financial Corporation, played a fraud, with his wife Parkash Kumari, by selling the land, of which it (Punjab Financial Corporation), was not the owner. It was further stated that, accordingly, his (complainant`s) wife had to pay the cost of land, plus other expenses amounting to the tune of Rs.2.8 lacs, to the Punjab Small Industries and Export Corporation Ltd. It was further stated that since, the correct information was not supplied by the Assistant Public Information Officer of the Punjab Financial Corporation, the complainant suffered a lot of mental agony and physical harassment, as also financial loss. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Assistant Public Information Officer of the Punjab Financial Corporation, by supplying the incorrect information, under the Right to Information Act, 2005, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice.
3. Complaint Case No. 721 of 2011 - In this complaint, the complainant applied for some information, under the Right to Information Act, 2005, to the Punjab Small Industries and Export Corporation Ltd., Chandigarh, and Punjab Financial Corporation, on 25.07.2011 and 08.08.2011 respectively. The Punjab Financial Corporation, refused to supply the information, on the excuse of its non-availability. The said information was supplied to the complainant, by the Punjab Small Industries and Export Corporation Ltd., Chandigarh, vide letter dated 16.09.2011. It was stated that the Assistant Public Information of the Punjab Financial Corporation, very cleverly replied in a misleading manner i.e. borrower had mortgaged the lease rights to the Punjab Financial Corporation, and the same were sold by Punjab Financial Corporation. It was further stated that the lease rights could not be sold, rather the same could only be transferred. It was further stated that, by supplying the misleading information by the Assistant Public Information Officer of the Punjab Financial Corporation, a lot of mental agony and physical harassment was caused to the complainant, who is more than 73 years of age, and, as such, a Senior Citizen. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Assistant Public Information Officer of the Punjab Financial Corporation, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice.
4. When the grievance of the complainant, in both the complaints, was not redressed, left with no other alternative, Consumer Complaint Nos.496 of 2011, for direction to the Punjab Financial Corporation, to supply the correct information, under the Right to Information Act, 2005, sought for by the complainant, in the applications aforesaid, and to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation, towards mental agony and physical harassment caused to him, as also costs of litigation and 721 of 2011, claiming Rs.60,000/-, as compensation, towards mental agony and physical harassment caused to him and Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation, were filed by him.
5. The Opposite Party, in its written version, in both the complaints, denied, if any misleading information was supplied to the complainant, in pursuance of the application, moved by him. It was stated that the complainant did not fall within the definition of a consumer, nor the dispute, in question, was a consumer dispute, and, as such, the Consumer Forum had no Jurisdiction, whatsoever, to entertain and decide the complaints. It was further stated that, if the complainant was aggrieved, against the alleged misleading information, supplied to him, by the Assistant Public Information Officer of the Punjab Financial Corporation, he had remedy to file an appeal, before the First Appellate Authority, under the Right to Information Act, 2005. It was further stated that, if he still felt aggrieved, against the order of the First Appellate Authority,, he could file a second appeal, against that order, to the State Information Commission. It was further stated that the correct information was supplied to the complainant, in both the applications. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Party, in both the complaints, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
6. The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.
7. After hearing the complainant, Counsel for the Opposite Party, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted both the complaints, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order.
8. Feeling aggrieved, two First Appeal Nos.151 of 2012, tilted as Assistant Public Information Officer Vs. Balraj Kalra, and 152 of 2012, titled as Assistant Public Information Officer Vs. Balraj Kalra, were filed, by the appellant/Opposite Party, for setting aside the order of the District Forum, being illegal and without Jurisdiction.
9. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, in both the appeals, and, have gone through the evidence and record of both the cases, carefully.
10. The Counsel for the appellant/Opposite Party, in both the appeals, submitted that neither the complainant fell within the definition of a consumer, nor the dispute, in question, was a consumer dispute, and, as such, the District Forum, had no Jurisdiction to entertain, and decide the complaints. He further submitted that the jurisdiction of the District Forum, under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was barred under Sections 22 and 23 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. He further submitted that neither the respondent/complainant hired the services of the Opposite Party/appellant, for consideration, nor he fell within the definition of a consumer. He further submitted that even the Right to Information Act, 2005, has overriding effect, vis--vis the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. He further submitted that since the jurisdiction of the District Forum was specifically barred under Sections 22 and 23 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, by entertaining and deciding the complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, it (District Forum), acted illegally. He further submitted that the District Forum was, thus, completely wrong, in usurping the jurisdiction, which did not vest in it. He further submitted that the findings of the District Forum, that it had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint, being illegal and perverse, are liable to be set aside.
11. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent/complainant, submitted that since an application was moved by the complainant, for seeking information, from the Assistant Public Information Officer, by making payment of application fee, and also depositing the cost of stamp to the tune of Rs.35/- for sending the information to him, through Regd. Post, he availed of the services, of the said Authority, for consideration. He further submitted that, thus, the complainant fell within the definition of a consumer, under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. He further submitted that, when the complete information was not supplied to the complainant, but, on the other hand, only misleading information, was supplied to him, by the Opposite Party/appellant, it was certainly deficient, in rendering proper service. He further submitted that Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, provides an additional remedy, and, as such, the District Forum, had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. He further submitted that the findings of the District Forum, that jurisdiction vested in it, in entertaining and deciding the complaint, and granting compensation, to the complainant, for mental agony and physical harassment, being legal and valid, are liable to be held.
12. It may be stated here, that under Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, additional remedy is provided for speedy, inexpensive and affordable relief, to the consumers, but that would be available, where there is no express bar, under some Statutory provisions. Such bar is apparent, if we refer to Section 23 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which reads as under:-
Bar of jurisdiction of Courts: No Court shall entertain any suit, application or other proceeding in respect of any order made, under this Act, and no such order shall be called, in question, otherwise than by way of an appeal under this Act.
It was held in Patel Roadways Limited vs Birla Yamaha Limited (2000) 4 SCC 91, that a complaint before the Consumer Forum falls within the ambit of word `Suit`. Further the expression `Court` used in the aforesaid Section is a generic term, taking within its sweep, all the Authorities having the trappings of the Court. As Consumer Forums are having the trappings of the Court and are, in fact, specifically conferred the same powers, as are vested in a Civil Court, under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) in respect of the matters listed in Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the Consumer Forums are covered within the expression Court. In Trans Mediterranean Airways Vs. M/s Universal Exports and another (2011(4) RCR (Civil) 472 (SC), it was held as under:-
The use of the word Court in Rule 29 of the Second Schedule of the CA Act has been borrowed from the Warsaw Convention. We are of the view that the word Court has not been used in the strict sense in the Convention as has come to be in our procedural law. The word Court has been employed to mean a body that adjudicates a dispute arising under the provisions of the CP Act. The CP Act gives the District Forums, State Forums, and National Commission, the power to decide disputes of consumers. The jurisdiction, the power and procedure of these Forums are all clearly enumerated by the CP Act. Though, these Forums decide matters after following a summary procedure, their main function is still to decide disputes, which is the main function and purpose of a Court. We are of the View that for the purpose of the CA Act and the Warsaw Convention, the Consumer Forums can fall within the meaning of the expression Court.
13. The perusal of the provisions of Section 23 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, extracted above, reveals that, no Court shall entertain any suit, application or other proceeding, in respect of any order made under the Right to Information Act, 2005, and no such order shall be called, in question, otherwise than by way of an appeal under the Right to Information Act, 2005. In case, the complainant was aggrieved against the alleged misleading information, supplied to him, by the Assistant Public Information Officer of the Punjab Financial Corporation, in pursuance of the applications moved by him, under the Right to Information Act, 2005, the remedy which lay with him, was to file first appeal before the Public Information Officer, praying for the supply of correct information. After availing of such remedy, even if he still felt aggrieved, he had the remedy of filing the second appeal under Section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Once, a particular route was adopted by the complainant, under the Right to Information Act, 2005, he was required to seek further remedies under that very Act, but he failed to do so. In view of the specific bar created by Section 23 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, in our considered opinion, the District Forum, had no jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The District Forum, in our considered opinion, by entertaining and deciding the complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, acted illegally.
14. The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to, what is the effect of Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which provides that the provisions of the Act, are in addition to, and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law, for the time being, in force. This part of the Section is to be divided into two parts, namely (1) in addition to the provisions of any other law, for the time being, in force, and (2) the provisions of the Act are not in derogation of the provisions of any other law, for the time being, in force. For the first part, the effect of the aforesaid provision, is that, even if, there is an alternative remedy, available under some provision of any other Act, or, say, even if Civil Suit is maintainable, for a particular cause, the proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, are maintainable. The reason being, it is an additional speedy remedy, provided to the consumers.
15. However, with regard to the second part, namely, not in derogation of the provisions of any other law, for the time being, in force, would mean that it is not in abrogation, repeal or deviation of any other law, which is in force. This would mean that where there is an express bar, to initiate proceedings, in any other Court, or Forum, the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, will not have any overriding effect. Once there is a bar created under the Statute, giving exclusive jurisdiction, to the Court or the Tribunal, the provision that excludes the jurisdiction of the other Court or Tribunal will be effective and the proceedings could not be initiated, in any other Tribunal/Forum or the Court, except the Forum constituted under the provisions of the said Act. Similar principle of law, was laid down in T. Pundalika Vs. Revenue Department (Service Division) Government of Karnataka, Revision Petition No.4061 of 2010, decided by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, vide order dated 31.03.2011. The facts of T. Pundalika`s case (supra), were that the complainant, with a view to sort out the controversy, with respect to his pensionary benefits, filed an application, under the Karnataka Right to Information Act, 2002, seeking information. The Opposite Party, in that case, failed to provide the information. The complainant then filed a complaint, before the District Forum, which was allowed, and a direction was issued to the Opposite Party, to furnish the required information. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal, before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, was filed, which was allowed, with the observations, that the complainant could not be considered as a consumer, as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, since there was a remedy available to him, to approach the Appellate Authority, under Section 19 of the Karnataka Right to Information Act, 2002. Feeling aggrieved, against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Revision Petition, aforesaid, was filed before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in the aforesaid case, held that the appellant, could not claim himself, to be a consumer, under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as there was a remedy available to him, to approach the Appellate Authority, under Section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Similar principle of law, was laid down in Ballarpur Industries Ltd., Vs. Eastern Railways and others, 1986-2007 Consumer 11929 (NS), a case decided by a three Member Bench of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, that when the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum, is barred by any specific provision of some other Act, then it had no jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint, under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the facts of the instant cases.
16. The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainant fell within the definition of a consumer, and whether the Assistant Public Information Officer, while furnishing the information, under the Right to Information Act, 2005, rendered any service. Nominal fee prescribed under the relevant Rules, for seeking information, alongwith Rs.35/-, being the charges, for sending the same (information) through Registered Post, was deposited by the complainant. The Assistant Public Information Officer, while supplying the information, under the Right to Information Act, 2005, discharges his statutory duties. The person feeling aggrieved, against the orders of the Assistant Public Information Officer, can file an appeal. The Appellate Authority, while hearing the appeals, performs the quasi-Judicial functions. The Assistant Public Information Officer, therefore, does not render any service, to the complainant/applicant, seeking information, under the Right to Information Act, 2005. In S.P. Goel Vs. Collector of Stamps Delhi (AIR 1996 839 (SC), it was held that the person presenting a document, for registration, is not a consumer, within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, nor the Officers appointed under the Registration and Stamps Act, render any service to him, but, on the other hand, they perform statutory duties, which are at least quasi-Judicial. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid case, is fully applicable to the instant case. In the present case, neither the complainant was a consumer, nor the Opposite Party, was service provider, nor the dispute was a consumer dispute, and, as such, the Consumer Complaint was not maintainable.
17. The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the reliefs, claimed by the complainant in the complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, could be granted to him, under the Right to Information Act, 2005, or not. The complainant, in both the complaints, claimed compensation, on account of the reason, that he underwent a lot of mental agony and physical harassment, due to non-supply of the correct information, by the Assistant Public Information Officer of the Punjab Financial Corporation. Section 19(8)(b) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, also empowers the Central Information Commission, or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, to require the Public Authority, to compensate the complainant, for any loss or other detriment suffered. Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, empowers the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, to impose penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees for each day, till the application(s) is/are received or information is furnished, but the total amount of such penalty, shall not exceed twenty five thousand rupees. The reliefs, which were claimed by the complainant, under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, were also available to him, under Sections 19(8)(b) and 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. He could have availed of that remedy, by filing first appeal, when the information supplied was misleading, according to him, and, if any adverse order had been passed by the First Appellate Authority, under the Right to Information Act, 2005, he could file second appeal before the State Information Commission, and claim compensation & penalty also, as indicated above. Since the Act, under which the complainant, sought information, provided the remedy of first and second appeal, and grant of compensation and penalty, the jurisdiction of the District Forum, was barred, to entertain and decide the complaint, under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
18. The Counsel of the respondent/complainant, however, placed reliance on S.P. Thirumala Rao (Dr.) Vs. Mysore City Municipal Commissioner, II (2012) CPJ 72 (NC), K.Sagar, M.D., Kiran Chit Fund Musheerabad Vs. A. Bal Reddy & Anr, 2008(3) CPR 286 (SC), Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K. Gupta, (1994) 1 Supreme Court Cases 243, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Shiv Kumar Joshi, III (1999) CPJ 36 (SC), Kishori Lal Vs. E.S.I. Corporation, II (2007) CPJ 25 (SC), Usha Rani Aggarwal & Ors. Vs. Nagar Palika Parishad, Haldwani, IV (2006) CPJ 20 (NC), Ravindra Mohan Namdev Vs. Naib Tehsildar & Anr., II (2008) CPJ 161 (NC), Fair Air Engineers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. N.K. Modi, III (1996) CPJ 1 (SC) and Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society Vs. M. Lalitha (Dead) through LRs & Ors. 1986-2004 Consumer 7844 (NS): 2003 CCC 394 (NS): (2004) 1 SCC 305, in support of his contentions, that the complainant fell within the definition of a consumer, the dispute was a consumer dispute, and, as such, the District Forum had jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint. The submission of the Counsel for the respondent/complainant, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. In S.P. Thirmuala Rao`s case (supra), decided by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, did not fall for interpretation. This case pertained to Karnataka Right to Information Act, 2002. It is evident from the Judgment that Karnataka Right to Information Act, 2002, does not provide for any remedy to the consumers who seek information under the same, for deficiency of service, in the nature of compensation or damages, for not furnishing the same (information) which they are entitled to get under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It was, under these circumstances that the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, held, in the aforesaid case, that the Consumer Fora, had Jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. In Right to Information Act, 2005, as held above under Section 19(8)(b), the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, can direct the Public Authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered. Thus, the provisions of Karnataka Right to Information Act, 2002, and Right to Information Act, 2005, with regard to the grant of compensation for deficiency, in service, harassment, loss or detriment suffered by the complainant, are not similar and identical. In K.Sagar, M.D., Kiran Chit Fund Musheerabad `s case (supra), the matter was remitted back to the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, to consider the question of Jurisdiction, and, as such, no binding principle of law, was laid down therein. Lucknow Development Authoritys case (supra), pertains to the services, regarding housing construction work, which was essentially a commercial activity. The Hon`ble Supreme Court held that the legislative intention is thus clear to protect a consumer against services rendered even by statutory bodies. The test, therefore, is not if a person against whom complaint is made is a statutory body, but whether the nature of the duty and function performed by it, is service or even facility. As stated above, the provisions of Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, could not operate in derogation of the provisions of any other law i.e. against the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005.It was under these circumstances in Lucknow Development Authority`s case (supra), held that there was deficiency, in rendering service, with regard to allotment of land or houses for common man, in the discharge of the Statutory functions by statutory Authority, which amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In , Regional Provident Fund Commissioners case (supra), the complainant was a member of the Provident Fund Scheme. Under the Employee Provident Fund Act, the perusal of the Scheme clearly indicated that the authorities concerned, under the same, were rendering service to an employee, a member of the said scheme. It was under these circumstances, held that the complainant fell within the definition of a consumer, as he hired services of the Opposite Party, and a consumer complaint for deficiency, in service, was maintainable. In Kishori Lal`s case (supra), the complainant was insured with the Opposite Party. Contributions were regularly deducted from his salary, paid by the employer. He had got his wife admitted in the E.S.I. dispensary, for treatment of diabetes. Improper treatment was alleged by him. Test performed, in the private hospital, revealed that diagnosis were incorrectly done in the E.S.I. dispensary, as a result whereof the condition of the wife of the complainant deteriorated. It was, under these circumstances held, that the services rendered by the E.S.I. Corporation cannot be regarded as service, rendered free of charge. It was further held that the service availed of under an Insurance Scheme of medical care, whereunder charges for consultation, diagnosis, and medical treatment are borne by the insurer, falls within the ambit of service defined under Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and, as such, in case of deficiency, in service, or unfair trade practice, a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was maintainable. In Usha Rani Aggarwal`s case (supra), septic tank had not been cleaned, by the Officials of the Municipality, despite receiving consideration of Rs.200/-, for this work. It was held that, it was a clear-cut case of deficiency, in rending service, and the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was maintainable. In Ravindra Mohan Namdev`s case (supra), certified copies of the case record were not supplied by the Naib Tehsildar. Directions were given to the Collector, to supply copies, if not yet been supplied. It was held that prolonged harassment was suffered by the complainant, and considerable cost was incurred in pursuing the request for getting the certified copies. There was no provision in the relevant Act, for grant of compensation for harassment and mental agony. It was, under these circumstances, that compensation for mental agony and physical harassment was awarded. Fair Air Engineers Pvt. Ltd.
& Anrs` case (supra) related to the arbitration proceedings, and had no relevance, to the facts of the complaint, filed by the complainant. It was held in paragraph 15 of the Judgment, in Fair Air Engineers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.`s case (supra), that Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, did not confer an automatic right nor create an automatic embargo, on the exercise of the power, by the Judicial Authority, under the provisions of the Act. Keeping in view this provision, it was held by the Supreme Court of India, that the Consumer Forums, which had Judicial Authority, are at liberty to proceed with the matters. In Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Societys case (supra), the Court dealt with Section 90 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act 1983, which provided that dispute touching the constitution of the Board or Management or the Business of a Registered Society, was required to be decided by the Competent Authority provided under the Act. Section 156 of the said Act, gave finality to the orders or decision taken, under the Act, by an Arbitrator, liquidator, the Registrar, or an Officer authorized or empowered by him. In that context, the Supreme Court held that Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, provided an alternative speedy remedy to the consumers, and that it (Court) was not dealing with a scheme, where there was an express bar on its jurisdiction. In none of these cases, it was laid down, that if a specific bar of Jurisdiction, is created under the Statute, from entertaining and deciding the dispute, by any other Court/Tribunal, still a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, would be maintainable. The facts of the aforesaid cases, being entirely distinguishable, from the facts of the instant case, no help, therefore, can be drawn by the Counsel for the respondent/complainant, from the principle of law, laid down therein, to support his contention, that Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, provides an additional remedy, and, as such, the District Forum, had jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint. The submission of the Counsel for the respondent/complainant, in this regard, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
19. The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the Right to Information Act, 2005, has overriding effect, vis-a-vis the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, or not. Section 22 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, reads as under:-
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 Right to Information Act, 2005, is an enactment, which is later in date, than the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. Ram Lal (2005) 2 SCC 638, it was held that if both the Statutes contain non-obstante clause, and are special Statutes, an endeavor should be made, to give effect to both of them. In case of conflict, the latter shall prevail. In the instant case, both the Statutes, contain non-obstante clause. In case of conflict, the Statute enacted later in date i.e. the Right to Information Act, 2005, shall prevail over the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as per the provisions of Section 22 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. It is, therefore, held that the Right to Information Act, 2005, overrides the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
20. In view of the above discussion, it is held that neither the complainant fell with the definition of a consumer, nor the dispute, in question, was a consumer dispute, and the jurisdiction of the District Forum, in entertaining and deciding the complaint, was completely barred, under Section 23 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The findings of the District Forum, that it had the jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint, being illegal, are liable to be set aside. Once it is held that the Jurisdiction of the District Forum was barred, the findings recorded by it, on merits of the case, being null and void, are also liable to be set aside
21. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties.
22. For the reasons recorded above, First Appeal Nos.151 of 2012, tilted as Assistant Public Information Officer Vs. Balraj Kalra, and 152 of 2012, titled as Assistant Public Information Officer Vs. Balraj Kalra, filed by the appellant/Opposite Party, are accepted, with no order as to cost. The orders passed by the District Forum, in both the complaints, are set aside.
23. The respondent/complainant shall, however, be at liberty to resort any other legal remedy, which may be available to him.
24. Certified copy of this order, be placed in First Appeal Nos.152 of 2012,.
25. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
26. The file be consigned to Record Room, after due completion Pronounced.
August 3, 2012 Sd/-
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (Retd.)] PRESIDENT Sd/-
[NEENA SANDHU] MEMBER Rg