State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
United India Insurance Company Ltd vs Tarlochan Singh Son Of Late Sh. Madho Ram on 11 September, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
...
First Appeal No. 262 of 2012
Date of Institution : 05.03.2012
Date of decision : 11.09.2012
United India Insurance Company Ltd, having its Regional Office 136, Feroze
Gandhi Market, Ludhiana through its Duly Constituted Attorney Dr. S.K. Takyar,
Manager.
...Appellant
Versus
Tarlochan Singh son of Late Sh. Madho Ram, resident of House No. HL-168,
Sukhdev Nagar, Focal Point, Ludhiana.
...Respondent
First Appeal against the order dated 27.01.2012 of the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Ludhiana.
Before:-
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.N.Aggarwal, President.
Sh.Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Parminder Singh, Advocate for Sh. Paul S. Saini, Advocate.
For the respondent : None.
JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT Submits that the respondent had applied for some information under the Right to Information Act to the appellants. The appellants have had informed the respondents that the said information was not available with them and that was available with the Third Party Administrator. The respondent filed an appeal under Right to Information Act to the Appellate Authority of the appellants. The Appellate Authority also informed the respondent vide letter dated 08.05.2010 that the information sought for by the respondent was lying with Third Party Administrator. The respondent was not satisfied with the reply given by the appellants. Hence the respondent filed a consumer Complaint in First Appeal No. 262 of 2012 2 the District Consumer Forum, Ludhiana alleging deficiency in services on the party of the appellants for non supply of the required information. That complaint was contested by the appellants but the learned District Forum accepted the complaint vide impugned order dated 27.01.2012 and burdened the appellants with cost of Rs. 5,000/-.
2. Hence, the appeal.
3. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant was that proper information was given to the respondent by the appellants that the information sought for by him was not available with them and it was available with the Third Party Administrator. If the respondent was not satisfied with this reply there is a separate remedy available under the Right to Information Act, 2005 for filing the appeal in the State Information Commission. Under Section 19 (8)(b) the State Information Commission could have granted compensation to the appellant and since that remedy was available with the respondent, therefore, the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act could not be availed to him. Hence, it was prayed that the appeal be accepted and the impugned judgment dated 27.01.2012 be set aside.
4. Record has been perused and submissions have been considered.
5. Section 19 provides as under :-
(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 the receipt of such a decision prefer an appeal to such office 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.
Provided that such officer may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of thirty days if he or she is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. (2) Where an appeal is preferred against an order made by a Central Publication Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case First Appeal No. 262 of 2012 3 may be, under Section 11 to disclose third party information the appeal by the concerned third party shall be made within thirty days from the date of the order.
(3) A second appeal against the decision under sub-section (I) shall lie within ninety days from the date on which the decision should have been made or was actually received, with the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission:
Provided that the Central Information
Commission or the State Information
Commission as the case may be, may admit
the appeal after the expiry of the period of ninety it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time.
(4) If the decision of the Central Public Information Officer or State Public.
Information Officer, as the case may be, against which an appeal is preferred relates to information of a third party, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, shall give a reasonable opportunity of being heard to that third party.
(5) In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, who denied the request.
(6) An appeal under sub-section (I) or sub-section (2) shall be disposed of within thirty days of the receipt of the appeal or within such extended period not exceeding a total of forty five days from the date of filing thereof, as the case may be, for reasons to be recorded in writing. (7) The decision of the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission as the case may be, shall be binding.
(8) In its decision the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be has the power to:- (a) require the public authority to take any such steps as may be necessary to secure First Appeal No. 262 of 2012 4 compliance with the provisions of this Act, including---
(i) by providing access to information, if so requested, in a particular form;
(ii) by appointing a Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be;
(iii) by publishing certain information or categories of information;
(iv) by making necessary changes to its practices in relation to the maintenance, management and destruction of records;
(v) by enhancing the provision of training on the right to information for its officials.
(vi) By providing it with an annual report in compliance with clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 4;
(b) require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered.
(c) Impose any of the penalties provided under this Act;
(d) Reject the application.
(9) The Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, shall give notice of its decision, including any right to appeal to the complainant and the public authority.
(10) The Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, shall decide the appeal in accordance with such procedure as may be prescribed.
6. It means therefore, that if particular information was intentionally withheld by the appellants then the respondents could have availed the remedy of filing the appeal before State information Commission and if he could satisfy the Commission, the Commission could have even granted compensation to the respondent.
7. Moreover, as far as the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is concerned, the respondent was also to prove as to what loss he has suffered First Appeal No. 262 of 2012 5 for non-supply of the information sought for by him from the appellants and only thereafter the compensation could have been granted to him.
8. Moreover, It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment dated 07.12.2011 passed in Civil Appeal No. 10706 of 2011 (Nivedita Sharma versus Cellular Operators Association of India) that although the Hon'ble High Court has the jurisdiction under Article 227 to interfere with the order of the State Commission but after the remedy of appeal is provided under the Consumer Protection, the Hon'ble High Court should not intervene.
9. The same analogy is applicable to the facts of this case. Since the remedy of appeal was available to the respondent under the Right to Information Act, therefore, it was not advisable for the Consumer Forum to entertain the complaint when the respondent had the remedy under the Right to Information Act which was a complete code in itself.
10. So far as the judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission relied upon by the respondent dated 25.08.2012 passed in RT1975 of 2005 is concerned, that judgment was not applicable to the facts of the present case for the simple reason that the provisions of Section 19(8)(b) were not discussed in the judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission.
11. Since, remedy under the Statute itself namely Right to Information Act, 2005 was available to the respondent, therefore, he should have availed that remedy instead of filing the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act.
12. In view of the discussion held above, this appeal is accepted and the impugned judgment dated 27.1.2012 is set aside.
13. Opportunity is granted to the respondent to avail the remedy available to him under the Right to Information Act. Period spent by him from the date of filing of the complaint in the learned District Forum on 16.08.2011 till today shall not be counted towards limitation in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Trai Foods Ltd. v. National Insurance Co. and others" (2004) 13 SCC 656.
14. The appellants had deposited Rs.25,00/- in this Commission at the time of filing of appeal on 05.03.2012. This amount along with interest on if any, First Appeal No. 262 of 2012 6 be refunded to the appellant by way of crossed cheque / bank draft after expiry of 45 days.
(Justice S.N.Aggarwal) President (Baldev Singh Sekhon) Member September 11, 2012.
KV