BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, B.Com B.L., President
And
Sri. M.Krishna Reddy, M.Sc., M.Phil., Male Member
And
Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, B.A., B.L., Lady Member
Tuesday the 22nd day of November, 2011
C.C.No.80/2011
Between:
Dr.N.Gangaiah, S/o.N.Thimmaiah,
H.No.87/289, Kamala Nagar,Kurnool - 518 002.
…Complainant
-Vs-
- The Public Information Officer, O/o The Commissioner & Director of School Education,
Andhra Pradesh, H.No.6-1-88, Saifabad, Hyderabad-500 004.
- The commissioner and Director of School Education,
Andhra Pradesh,H.No.6-1-88, Saifabad, Hyderabad - 500 004.
- The Public Information Officer,O/o.The Secretary, Education (S.E.Genl-II), Government of Andhra Pradesh,
H.No.6-1-88, Saifabad, Hyderabad-500 004.
- The Secretary, Education (S.E.Genl-II), Government of Andhra Pradesh,
H.No.6-1-88, Saifabad, Hyderabad-500 004.
- The Public Information Officer, O/o.The District Educational Officer,
H.No.50-1, Collector Complex, Kurnool - 518 002.
- The District Educational Officer,
H.No.50-1, Collector Complex, Kurnool - 518 002.
...Opposite ParTies
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri P.Siva Sudarshan, Advocate for complainant and Government Pleader for opposite parties 1 to 6 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, President)
C.C. No.80/2011
1. This complaint is filed under section 11 and 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying to direct the opposite parties:-
- To supply the information requested by the complainant;
- To pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony;
- To grant the cost of the complaint;
- To grant any other relief as the Honourable Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is as under:- On 02-02-2010 the complainant requested opposite party No.1 for information and paid the application fee. Opposite party No.1 on 16-04-2010 requested the P.I.O. of the M.R. College of Education Vizianagaram to answer the questions 1 to 11. The complainant not received the required information from opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.1 on 16-04-2010 asked the principals of the Government Colleges at Rajahmundry Nellore and Hyderabad to answer the question No.12. The complainant received the information from the principals of Rajahmundry and Nellore but not from Hyderabad. The complainant appealed to opposite party No.2. There is no response from opposite party No.2. The complainant appealed to the A.P. Information Commission and there is no response.
The complainant requested opposite party No.3 for information and also supplying a copy of G.O. through a letter dated 03-02-2010 enclosing two cheques. The complainant letter has been transferred to the C & DSE on 22-02-2010 with a request to send the information. But there is no response from C & DSC. The complainant on 13-08-2010 requested opposite party No.3 for certain information and paid Rs.10/- towards fee. But there is no response from opposite party No.3. The complainant appealed to opposite party No.4 on 27-10-2010. The Deputy Secretary to Government (S.E. Genl – II) transferred application of the complainant to C & DSC. The complainant preferred appeal to A.P. Information Commission. There is no response from the commission also.
The complainant requested opposite party No.5 to supply certain information from their stock files. The complainant paid Rs.10/- towards fee. There is no response from opposite party No.5. Hence the complainant appealed to opposite party No.6 D.E.O., Kurnool. Due to negligent attitude of opposite parties the complainant suffered with lot of mental agony and financial loss. Hence the complaint.
3. Opposite party No.6 filed written version and the same is adopted by opposite parties 1 to 5. It is stated in the written version of opposite party No.6 that the complaint is unjust and is not tenable. The complainant has applied for certain information to opposite party No.1 and paid the application fee. The complainant in his application raised 13 questions. Out of the 13 questions, 11 questions pertaining to the office of M.R. College of Education, Vizianagaram. The 12th question pertains to Colleges at Rajahmundry, Nellore and Hyderabad. The 13th question pertaining to the office of opposite parties 1 and 2. Accordingly the application of the complainant was transferred to the P.I.O. of M.R. College of Education Vizianagaram for furnishing the information on questions 1 to 11 duly marking copy to the applicant. Relating to the question No.12 the principals of Government Colleges, Rajahmundry, Nellore and Hyderabad were asked to submit the information to the complainant. Opposite party No.1 furnished the information pertaining the question No.13 to the applicant. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2. The complainant has raised questions in the R.T.I. application forms instead of seeking information. The complainant was supplied information available with the Public Information Officer. The complainant is not a Consumer as defined in the Act. The complaint is not maintainable. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to A18 are marked and sworn affidavit of the complainant is filed. On behalf of the opposite parties sworn affidavit of opposite party No.6 is filed. No documents are marked on behalf of opposite parties.
5. Both sides filed written arguments.
6. The points that arise for consideration are:-
- Whether the complainant is a Consumer as defined in section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act.?
- Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?
7. POINT No.1:- It is the case of the complainant that he applied to opposite parties 1, 3 and 5 for information by paying application fee and that the opposite parties failed to furnish the said information as requested by him in the application. It is the contention of the opposite parties that the complainant is not a Consumer under the Act and that the present complaint is not maintainable. Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the contains the definition of “Consumer”. As per the said definition the Consumer is a person who buys goods for consideration or avails of any service for the consideration. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant in support of his contention that the complainant is a Consumer and that the present complaint is maintainable relied on an unreported decision of the National Commission in Revision Petition No.1975/2005. In the said order the Honourable National Commission held that section 2 (i) (o) of C.P. Act, which provides that service means service of any description which is made available to potential users, which include purveying of news or supplying of other information. In the present case on hand the complainant admittedly paid application fee and sought for certain information from opposite parties 1, 3 and 5. The complainant paid the required fee to avail the services of opposite party. It is alleged in the complaint that opposite parties failed to furnish the required information. As the complainant availed the services of opposite parties 1, 3 and 5 by paying the application fee, he is a Consumer with in meaning of section 2 (1) (d) of the Act and the present complaint is maintainable.
8. POINTS 2 and 3:- Admittedly the complainant submitted an application Ex.A1 dated 02-02-2010 to opposite party No.1 seeking certain information. The opposite party No.1 also received the application fee along with the application. As seen from the available record it is very clear that opposite party No.1 requested P.I.O. of M.R. College of Education, Vizianagaram to answer the question Nos. 1 to 11. Regarding question No.12 the opposite party No.1 requested the principals of Government Colleges at Rajahmundry, Nellore and Hyderabad to furnish the information. Admittedly the complainant received the information from the principals of Rajahmundry and Nellore. The opposite party No.1 submitted the information on point No.13. Opposite party No.1 after receiving the application of the complainant acted on it and directed the concerned to submit the information. No negligence is there on the part of opposite party No.1. Mere failure of P.I.O. of M.R. College of Education Vizianagaram and Government College Hyderabad in furnishing the information, opposite party No.1 cannot be blamed. No deficiency of service is found on the part of opposite party No.1.
9. It is the case of the complainant that he requested opposite party No.3 through letters dated 03-20-2010 and 13-08-2010 to furnish certain information along with application fee, that the complainant request letters were transferred to C & DSE to furnish information and that there is no response from the C & DSC. Ex.A9 dated 03-02-2010 and Ex.A13 dated 13-08-2010 are the applications addressed to opposite party No.3 under R.T.I., Act. Opposite party No.3 after receiving the said applications transferred the same to C & DSC with a request to furnish information. According to the complainant C & DSC has not furnished the information. It is not the case of the complainant that the information sought for under Ex.A9 and Ex.A13 applications is there in the office of opposite party No.4. As the information sought for is not there in the office of opposite party No.4 the said applications were transferred to C & DSC to furnish the available information. There is no negligence on the part of opposite party No.3. No deficiency of service is there on the part of opposite party No.3. Opposite party No.3 attended the applications of complainant immediately. In Ex.A10 letter addressed by opposite party No.4 it is clearly mentioned that the information sought by the complainant in his application dated 03-02-2010 is not available in the department. The copy of the said letter is also addressed to the complainant.
10. According to the complainant he applied to opposite party No.5 to supply copies of four stock files, and paid applications fee of Rs.10/- but there was no response from opposite party No.5. Ex.A11 is the copy of the application of the complainant dated 03-02-2010. In the written version filed by opposite party No.6 the said fact is not denied. It is also not stated as to why information sought for under Ex.A11 was not furnished to the complainant. It is the case of the complainant that he preferred an appeal to opposite party No.6. Opposite party No.5 did not give any explanation for failure to supply the information required by the complainant. The complainant in his sworn affidavit clearly stated that opposite party No.5 has not furnished the information and that he preferred an appeal to opposite party No.6. There is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.5. The complainant claims compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. The complainant has not stated in the present complaint the purpose for which the information sought for under Ex.A11 is required. No doubt in the application under Right to Information Act the applicant need not mention the purpose for which the information is required. In the present complaint the complainant is claiming compensation for mental agony. Without knowing the purpose for which the said information is required the compensation cannot be assessed. In the circumstance we think it is just and proper to award nominal amount of Rs.1,000/- as compensation for mental agony caused to complainant due to non-supply of the information by opposite party No.5 under R.T.I. Act. Opposite party No.6 is appellant authority and opposite party No.6 cannot be held responsible for the negligence of opposite party No.5.
11. In result, the complaint is partly allowed against opposite party No.5 directing him to pay compensation of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant for causing mental agony. The complaint against opposite parties 1 to 4 and 6 is dismissed. In the circumstance of the case both parties to bear their own cost.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 22nd day of November, 2011.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant : Nil For the opposite parties : Nill
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Photo copy of letter by complainant to opposite party
No.1 dated 02-02-2010 along with photo postal receipt.
Ex.A2 Photo copy of letter by opposite party No.1 to
complainant dated 03-03-2010.
Ex.A3 Photo copy of letter by complainant to opposite party
No.1 dated 15-03-2010.
Ex.A4 Photo copy of letter by opposite party No.1 to
complainant dated 16-04-2010.
Ex.A5 Photo copy of letter by opposite party No.1 to
complainant dated 16-04-2010.
Ex.A6 Photo copy of complainant appeal to opposite party
No.2 dated 28-05-2010.
Ex.A7 Photo copy of complainant appeal to opposite party
No.3 dated 21-07-2010.
Ex.A8 Photo copy of letter by complainant to A.P.Information
Commission, HACA Bhavan, Hyderabad along with
photo postal receipt dated 22-07-2010.
Ex.A9 Photo copy of letter by complainant to opposite party No.3 dated 03-02-2010.
Ex.A10 Photo copy of letter issued by joint secretary to
Government to OP.No.1 dated 22-02-2010.
Ex.A11 Letter by complainant to opposite party No.5
dated 03-02-2010.
Ex.A12 Letter by complainant to opposite party No.6
dated 16-04-2010.
Ex.A13 Photo copy of letter by complainant to state public
information officer, Hyderabad dated 13-08-2010.
Ex.A14 Photo copy of letter by complainant to opposite party
No.4 dated 30-09-2010.
Ex.A15 Photo copy of letter by complainant to A.P.
Information commission, HACA Bhavan, Hyderabad
dated 15-11-2010.
Ex.A16 Photo copy of Memo No.16280/Genl.II/A2/2010-1
issued by Deputy Secretary to Government Education
Department dated 27-10-2010.
Ex.A17 Photo copy of Memo No.16280/Genl.II/A2/2010-1
issued by Deputy Secretary to Government Education
Department dated 27-10-2010.
Ex.A18 Photo copy of letter by Public Information Officer and
Additional Director of School Education, Hyderabad to
complainant dated 16-04-2010.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:- Nill
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties :
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
