State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
S. Dorai Raj Plot No.108, Aruna Nagar K. ... vs The Divisional Personnel Officer & ... on 23 August, 2012
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI BEFORE : Honble Thiru Justice R. REGUPATHI PRESIDENT Tmt. VASUGI RAMANAN MEMBER
Thiru. S. SAMBANDAM MEMBER II F.A.NO.472/2012 (Against order in S.R.NO.290/2012 on the file of the DCDRF, Coimbatore) DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF AUGUST 2012 S. Dorai Raj Plot No.108, Aruna Nagar K. Vadamadurai ( In person) Coimbatore-
641 017 Appellant / Complainant Vs.
1. The Divisional Personnel Officer & Nodal Public Information Officer Southern Railway Divisional Office Madurai- 625 016
2. The Manager The Professional Couriers No.216-B, Ooty Main Road Mettupalayam- 641 301 Respondents/ Opposite parties The Appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party praying for certain direction. The District Forum partly dismissed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.13.07.2012 in SR.No.290/2012.
This petition coming before us for hearing finally today. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel for the appellant, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order in the open court:
JUSTICE R. REGUPATHI, PRESIDENT (Open court)
1. The complainant/ appellant preferred a complaint before the District Forum, by impleading the 1st opposite party, situated at Madurai, alleging deficiency against them, for non-providing of some information, regarding the pensionary benefit of his father-in-law, who was an ex-employee of Railways, sought for by the complainant, through RTI Act.
The 2nd opposite party is a courier company, through whom the letter seeking some information with the 1st opposite party, was sent.
2. The District Forum, on perusal of the materials, passed an order, by rejecting the complaint, holding that the relief is sought for only against the 1st opposite party, who is situated at Madurai, and hence there is no territorial jurisdiction, to file the complaint before the District Forum at Coimbatore.
3. The appellant/ complainant, appearing as party in person, submitted that since the letter has been sent from the jurisdiction of the District Forum, Coimbatore, in which the complaint has been filed, the complaint ought to have been entertained, and seeks to set aside the order passed by the District Forum.
4. We have perused the materials, and on careful consideration of the prayer made, we are of the view that the order passed by the District Forum is well founded. In a similar matter in RP.No.4061/2010, dt.31.3.2011, in T. Pundalika Vs. Revenue Department (Service Division) Government of Karnataka, the Honble National Commission has held that the petitioner cannot be claimed to be a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, and further when there is a remedy available for him to approach the appellate authority under Sec.19 of RTI Act, the prayer of the appellant cannot be entertained. The same facts are applicable to the case on our hand also. Under such circumstances the appeal deserves rejection.
5. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the order of the District Forum in Sr.No.290/2012 dt.13.7.2012. There will be no order as to cost.
S. SAMBANDAM VASUGI RAMANAN R. REGUPATHI MEMBER II MEMBER PRESIDENT