State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Padala Brahmanandam vs The Central Public Information Officer on 20 June, 2012
BEFORE
THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD.
FA 1005 of 2011
against CC 51/2011, Dist. Forum, Nellore
Between:
Padala Brahmanandam
S/o. Venkata Subbaiah
D.No. 6-6-3, Jakkalavari Street
Kovur-524 137
Nellore Dist. *** Appellant/
Complainant
And
The Central Public Information
Officer
Syndicate Bank, Corporate
Office
2nd Cross, Gandhi
Nagar
Bangalore-560 009
Karnataka State.
***
Respondent/
O.P
Counsel for the Appellant: P.I.P.
Counsel for the Respondent: M/s. M.V.
Ramana
CORAM:
HONBLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER
&
SRI
S. BHUJANGA RAO
WEDNESDAY,
THE TWENTIETH DAY
OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND TWELVE
ORAL
ORDER:(Per Honble Sri Justice D. Appa Rao, President) ***
1) The appellant is unsuccessful complainant.
2) The case of the complainant in brief is that he sought information under Right to Information Act, from the Central Public Information Officer of Syndicate Bank by paying Rs. 10/- fee prescribed in this regard. However, he did not furnish the information which amounts to deficiency in service as held by the National Commission in Dr. S.P. Thirumala Rao Vs. Municipal Corporation in R.P. No. 1975 of 2005. Therefore he filed the complaint directing the respondent to provide information together with compensation of Rs. 5,000/- towards inconvenience caused to him
3) The respondent resisted the case. It alleged that on 20.9.2001 the complainant had availed jewel loan of Rs. 9,000/- from Kovur branch of Pinankigi Grameena Bank. When he could not redeem notice of auction was published in Eenadu Nellore edition on 11.3.2004.
Before auction, he redeemed it on 8.3.2004. However, there was no time to delete the name of the complainant from the auction list of the borrowers. Since the publication charges were to be borne by the borrowers Rs. 214/- was deducted from his S.B. account, and the minimum balance in the account has come to Rs. 68/- much lower than the amount prescribed under S.B. account attracting penal interest of Rs. 10/- per month. After deducting penalty amount the balance came to NIL. The said fact was intimated to him. The information that he sought for was furnished on different dates as set-out in the counter which we do not intend to repeat. There was no complaint after closure of case by the Banking Ombudsman on 28.2.2008. He even preferred appeal which was closed on 26.5.2008 by the Central Information Commission accepting their submission. In fact information was furnished by registered post, and therefore there was no deficiency in service on its part, and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4) The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A3 marked while the respondent did not file any documents.
5) The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the appellant/complainant has been provided information under the RTI Act. Despite the fact that the Central Public Information Officer granted a sum of Rs. 394/- and that remedies are provided under the RTI Act the complainant cannot file a complaint under Consumer Protection Act as well an application under RTI Act simultaneously. The complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, and therefore dismissed the complaint.
6) Aggrieved by the said decision, the complainant preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate either facts or law in correct perspective. It ought to have seen that requisite information sought by him was not furnished despite several notices. The information was not furnished as required by him. The Dist. Forum ought to have considered the decision of National Commission in this regard, and therefore prayed that the complaint be allowed.
7) The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact or law?
8) The complainant admittedly filed a complaint against the Central Public Information Officer of Syndicate Bank alleging that he did not furnish the information as required by him despite the fact that he paid the requisite amount under the RTI Act. The respondent alleges that it has furnished the information which he received by registered post.
9) Before going into the facts, it may be stated herein that the complainant did not dispute that he preferred appeal when information was not furnished by the respondent to the Central Information Commission. The contention that said appeal has been closed after having accepted submission of respondent was equally not in dispute. The complainant did not exhaust the remedies available under the R.T.I,. Act, and therefore the complaint is not maintainable.
10) At the outset, we may state the information sought for under RTI Act cannot be termed as service, nor the complainant a consumer vis--vis opposite party in order to attract the provisions of Consumer Protection Act to ventilate his grievance. We do not intend to state that the complainant has no other recourse. However, it is up to him to ventilate his grievance in an appropriate forum. As far as non-furnishing of information under RTI Act is concerned the National Commission in T. Pundalika Vs. Revenue Department (Service Division), Govt. of Karnataka in R.P. No. 4061/2010 decided on 31.3.2011 observed:
Petitioner in order to sort out the controversy with respect to his pensionary benefits, filed an application under Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the RTI Act, 2005) in the office of Opposite Party No.4. Opposite Party No.4 failed to provide the information. Petitioner then filed the complaint before the District Forum, which was allowed and a direction was issued to opposite party No.4 to furnish the required information.
Respondent, being aggrieved, filed an appeal before the State Commission, which has been allowed by observing thus:
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.
We agree with the view taken by the fora below. Petitioner cannot be claimed to be a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. There is a remedy available for him to approach the Appellant Authority under section 19 of the RTI Act, 2005.
11) As an alternative efficacious remedy is provided under the very RTI Act, their Lordship observed that the C. P. Act has no jurisdiction to the disputes arising under RTI Act. The contention that the Consumer Protection Act 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 :
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. From this it is beyond doubt that this Act however, has an overriding effect in that the authorities under this Act may make independent decisions about the question whether such disclosure or non-disclosure has any overriding public interest. Therefore, it may become necessary for the authorities to independently decide whether disclosure of information which itself being an act done in public interest, overweighs the public interest sought to be protected under those enactments.
In this context Section 23 is also worth to be mentioned.
23. 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.
12) The contention that compensation is not provided under the RTI Act for non-furnishing of information cannot be a ground to seek compensation under the Consumer Protection Act. The legislature might have thought no compensation need be awarded even when the authorities under the Act did not provide information. It has provided penalties against erring officials who did not provide information under the RTI Act. The legislature thought that it would adequately compensate the petitioner under the RTI Act. When the information to be furnished by the authorities under the RTI Act cannot be termed as service as defined under the C.P. Act, non-furnishing of information cannot be termed as deficiency in service. When consistently the courts opined that the information sought under the RTI Act is not a service, no complaint could be filed seeking compensation on the ground that it amounts to deficiency in service. The consumer Protection Act has limited scope, in the sense it would adjudicate the disputes between the consumers visa-vis service provider and others. When the authorities under the RTI Act are not considered as service providers no complaint could be filed against them under the Consumer Protection Act. When the courts have consistently held that the petitioner seeking compensation under the RTI Act are not consumers, the complainant cannot circumvent these decisions, and file complaint claiming compensation on the ground that RTI Act did not provide such relief. This amounts to abuse of process of law. We do not see any mis-appreciation of fact or law by the Dist. Forum in this regard.
We do not see any merits in the appeal.
13) In the result the appeal is dismissed. No costs.
1) _______________________________ PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________ MEMBER
3) ________________________________ MEMBER 20/06/2012 *pnr UP LOAD O.K.