Date of filing:-06/07/2015.
Date of Order:-26/07/2017.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRSSAL FORUM(COURT)
B A R G A R H.
Consumer Complaint No.33 of 2016.
Akshya Kumar Mahapatra, S/o Azadhind Mahpatra, aged about 47 (forty seven) years R/o-Vill.Tora Po/-Tora Ps/Dist-Bargarh.
..... ..... ..... Complainant.
-: V e r s u s :-
Public Information Officer, Bargarh Block Office, Bargarh Block, Po/Ps/Dist. Bargarh.
Office of the Panchayat Samittee Bargarh Block Office BargarhPO/PS/Dist-Bargarh.. ..... ..... ..... Opposite Parties.
Counsel for the Parties.
For the Complainant:- Sri P.R. Nag, Advocate with other Advocates.
For the Opposite Parties:- Sri S.K. Naik, Associate lawyer.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r.
Ajanta Subhadarsinee ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r(w).
Dt.26/07/2017 -: J U D G E M E N T :-
Presented by Sri K.P. Mishra, President:-
Brief Fact of the Case:-
The case of the Complainant in brief is that, the Complainant is that, he had applied for some Information in the office of the Block Development Officer, Bargarh regarding total supply of rice to Tora Gram Panchayat month wise in quantity for the year 2003-2004 and the total numbers of Below Poverty Line card holder of the Tora Panchayat, under col.5(five) of the Application Form under the Right to Information Act and had paid the required amount of fee through Treasury Challan. Against the said challan the office of the B.D.O.Bargarh has issued the receipt Dt.13.08.2014.
In response to the Application of the Complainant the Panchayat Samiti Tora had issued a letter to the Panchayat Extension Officer requesting to supply the said information to the Public Information Officer, Bargarh within the stipulated time but neither the P.E.O. Tora G.P. nor the P.I.O. Bargarh Block supplied the said information to the Complainant within the stipulated time till Dt.21.10.2014 even after several enquiry made by the Complainant for which he had preferred an appeal before the first appellate authority i.e Office of the Panchayat Samitee Bargarh on Dt.24.10.2014 but the Appelate Authority also neither took any steps to supply the said information to the Complainant nor took any action against the P.I.O., Bargarh till the date of filing of the case, for which of such deficient action of the Opposite Parties the Complainant complained to have suffered mentally a lot and proffered to take shelter of the Forum claiming Rs.20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand ) only against the Opposite Parties relying on some documents mentioned below.
The Xerox copy of the application under the R.T.I Act Dt.13.08.2014.
Xerox Copy of Receipt of the application by the P.I.O., Bargarh Block Dt.13.08.2014.
Xerox Copy of letter by Bargarh P.E.O Tora Dt.16.08.2014.
Xerox copy of Memo of Appeal showing the receipt on Dt. 24.10.2014.
In addition to the documents filed by him the Advocate for the Complainant has filed a notes of arguments in substantiation of his pleas.
Perused the complaint, documents filed by the Complainant and after hearing his counsel the case was admitted and on being served with notice the Opposite Parties appeared through the Government Pleader and filed their version contending therein that the complaint is not maintainable in the Consumer Forum since there are remedies for him to approach before the second Appellate Authority.
In furtherance to their averment they have said to have taken steps as mentioned in the para six and seven, wherein they have contended that the P.I.O Tora had instructed the P.E.O.Tora G.P vide Memo No.1068 Dt.16.08.2014 to supply the said information to the Complainant and also has admitted that the same memo of instruction has been received by the concerned authority but as the information were not available with them as such they have intimated about the same to the Complainant vide letter No.61 Dt.17.09.2014 , and have denied to have committed deficiencies in service and has prayed to dismiss the case as it is devoid of merit.
Having gone through the materials available in the record and the written arguments filed by the Advocate for the complainant, two vital question of law have come up before us to adjudicate the case firstly whether the case is maintainable before the Consumer Forum or not, and secondly whether the Opposite Parties are deficient in giving proper service to the Complainant or not, and in addition to those question of law whether the Complainant is entitled for any compensation as has prayed for.
So while adjudicating the question as to whether the complaint is maintainable before the Consumer Forum or not, in this context we vividly examined the materials available in the record and it came to our notice that the Complainant has duely paid the required amount of fees as consideration amount as per the Act which entitles him to be a consumer for which the enactment of the R.T.I.Act has been made by the legislature to enable the common people to have a right to know their required information from their elected government and it’s machineries, for which Government has fixed the particular amount of fees as consideration amount against their query for which a common people is entitle so also the Complainant, but surprisingly the information which the Complainant has sought for is related to a large section of the public is not available as per the contention made by the Opposite Parties in their version which itself proves the callousness and deficient action on their part.
Further regarding the question of the maintainability of the case before the Forum, as it has been discussed regarding the consideration amount paid to the Opposite Parties seeking for the information as enumerated earlier, in as much as the Hon'ble National Commission in it’s judgment Dt.28.05.2009 has opined that the Consumer Protection Law is an additional remedy to take care of the Consumer from unfair traders and deficient action, in view of the insertion of the Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 wherein it has been clearly defined that the Law is in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other Law for the time being in force. In view of such circumstances it can be safely concluded that the Complainant is also a consumer and hence the case in hand is maintainable in it’s present form, hence our views goes in favor of the Complainant and answered accordingly.
Further with regard to the question of the claim of the Complainant as to whether he is entitled for the same, as we have already discussed in our foregoing paragraph that the Complainant is a bonafied consumer in furtherance to his claim against the Opposite Parties being deficient in rendering service to him by not supplying him the information as sought for, it has been already established that the Opposite Parties are deficient in rendering the service hence in our view the Complainant is entitled for compensation for his physical and mental harassment caused by the Opposite Parties for which both them are jointly and severally are liable, hence order follows.
O R D E R
Hence the Opposite Parties are directed to pay the Complainant an amount of Rs 5,000/-(Rupees five thousand)only as compensation towards his mental agony and physical harassment within 30 (thirty) days from the receipt of the order with interest @ of 9% (nine percent) per annum from the date of filing of the case or else interest @16%(sixteen percent) per annum would accrue upon the amount till the actual realization of the same.
Accordingly the order is pronounced in the open Forum in the result complaint is allowed against the Opposite Parties and disposed off.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
(Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra)
P r e s i d e n t.
I agree, I agree,
(Ajanta Subhadarsinee) (Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash)
M e m b e r. M e m b e r.
