State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Smt.Tasleem Bint Hussain W/O.Shaik ... vs The State Public Information Officer, ... on 19 February, 2013
BEFORE THE A BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD. F.A.No.63/2013 against C.C.No.507/2012 District Forum-I, HYDERABAD Between Smt.Tasleem Bint Hussain W/o.Shaik Khaja Baba, aged 30 years, Occ:Household, R/o.H.No.2-3-423/554/B28/11, MCH Colony, Amberpet, Hyderabad-500 013. ..Appellant/ Complainant And The State Public Information Officer, O/o.Womens Police station, Central Crime Station, Nampally, Hyderabad-500 001. Respondent/
Opp.party.
F.A.No.64/2013 against C.C.No.508/2012 District Forum-I, HYDERABAD Between Smt.Tasleem Bint Hussain W/o.Shaik Khaja Baba, aged 30 years, Occ:Household, R/o.H.No.2-3-423/554/B28/11, MCH Colony, Amberpet, Hyderabad-500 013. ..Appellant/ Complainant And The State Public Information Officer, O/o.Womens Police station, Central Crime Station, Nampally, Hyderabad-500 001. Respondent/ Opp.party.
F.A.No.65/2013 against C.C.No.509/2012 District Forum-I, HYDERABAD Between Smt.Tasleem Bint Hussain W/o.Shaik Khaja Baba, aged 30 years, Occ:Household, R/o.H.No.2-3-423/554/B28/11, MCH Colony, Amberpet, Hyderabad-500 013. ..Appellant/ Complainant And The State Public Information Officer, O/o.Womens Police station, Central Crime Station, Nampally, Hyderabad-500 001. Respondent/ Opp.party.
F.A.No.66/2013 against C.C.No.510/2012 District Forum-I, HYDERABAD Between Smt.Tasleem Bint Hussain W/o.Shaik Khaja Baba, aged 30 years, Occ:Household, R/o.H.No.2-3-423/554/B28/11, MCH Colony, Amberpet, Hyderabad-500 013. ..Appellant/ Complainant And The State Public Information Officer, O/o.Womens Police station, Central Crime Station, Nampally, Hyderabad-500 001. Respondent/ Opp.party.
F.A.No.67/2013 against C.C.No.511/2012 District Forum-I, HYDERABAD Between Smt.Tasleem Bint Hussain W/o.Shaik Khaja Baba, aged 30 years, Occ:Household, R/o.H.No.2-3-423/554/B28/11, MCH Colony, Amberpet, Hyderabad-500 013. ..Appellant/ Complainant And The State Public Information Officer, O/o.Womens Police station, Central Crime Station, Nampally, Hyderabad-500 001. Respondent/ Opp.party.
F.A.No.68/2013 against C.C.No.512/2012 District Forum-I, HYDERABAD Between Smt.Tasleem Bint Hussain W/o.Shaik Khaja Baba, aged 30 years, Occ:Household, R/o.H.No.2-3-423/554/B28/11, MCH Colony, Amberpet, Hyderabad-500 013. ..Appellant/ Complainant And The State Public Information Officer, O/o.Womens Police station, Central Crime Station, Nampally, Hyderabad-500 001. Respondent/ Opp.party.
F.A.No.69/2013 against C.C.No.513/2012 District Forum-I, HYDERABAD Between Smt.Tasleem Bint Hussain W/o.Shaik Khaja Baba, aged 30 years, Occ:Household, R/o.H.No.2-3-423/554/B28/11, MCH Colony, Amberpet, Hyderabad-500 013. ..Appellant/ Complainant And The State Public Information Officer, O/o.Womens Police station, Central Crime Station, Nampally, Hyderabad-500 001. Respondent/ Opp.party.
For the Appellant :
Smt.Tasleem Bint Hussain, Party in person (common in all appeals) For the Respondent :
Admission stage.
(common in all appeals) QUORUM: SMT.M.SHREESHA, HONBLE Incharge President AND SRI S.BHUJANGA RAO, HONBLE MEMBER.
TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN Order (Per Smt.M.Shreesha, Honble Incharge President) *** Since all the appeals deal with similar facts, they are being disposed of by a common order:
F.A.No.63/2013:
Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.507/2012 on the file of District Forum-I, Hyderabad, the complainant preferred this appeal The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that on 12-9-2012 the complainant submitted an application to the opposite party seeking information U/s.6(1) of Right to Information Act, 2005 and paid a fee of Rs.10/-. It is her case that the department ought to have furnished the information within 48 hours and though she visited the office of the opposite party on 17-9-2012 still the information was not ready. The District Forum relying on the judgment of the National Commission in R.P.4061/2010 dated 31-3-2011 in T.Pundalika v. Revenue Department, Government of Karnataka held that the complainant is not a consumer under the consumer Protection Act, 1986, and there is a remedy available to the applicant to approach the appellate authority U/s.19 of the RTI Act.
Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred this appeal. The complainant, party in person is present and relied on the decision of the Honble National Commission in R.P.1975/2005 dated 28-5-2005 in Dr.S.P.Tirumala Rao v. Municipal Commissioner, Mysoure and also cited the following decisions:
i) Kalawathi & others v. United Vaish co-operative thrift & Credit Society Limited, reported in I (2002) CPJ 71(NC)
ii) Usha Rani Aggarwal v. Nagar Palika Parishad reported in IV (2006) CPJ 20 (NC)
iii) Fair Air Engineers Pvt. Ltd., & Anr. v. N.K.Modi reported in III (1996) CPJ 1 (SC)
iv) Skypak Couriers Limited v. Tata Chemicals Limited reported in II (2000) CPJ 6 (SC)= 85 (2000) dlt 634 (SC)
v) LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. M.K.GUPTA reported in III (1993) CPJ 7 (SC) We observe that all the decisions cited by the appellant/complainant are prior to the decision of the National Commission in R.P.4061/2010 which is dated 31-3-2011. This is a decision subsequent to the judgements cited by the complainant and therefore we are bound by it. The judgement of the National Commission in T.Pundalika v. Revenue Department, Service Division, Government of Karnataka reads as follows:
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.
Keeping in view this recent judgement of the National Commission, we are of the considered view that the complainant is not a consumer and that she can approach the Appellate authority if the information has not been provided as contemplated under the RTI Act.
In the result this appeal is dismissed. No costs.
F.A.Nos.64/2013 to F.A.No.69/2013:
For the same reasons as stated in F.A.No.63/2013, these appeals also fail and they are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
INCHARGE PRESIDENT.
MEMBER.
JM Dt.19-2-2013.