Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

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.

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.

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.