This complaint coming up before us for final hearing on                      11-04-11 in the presence of complainant and of Sri B.Krishna Kishore, advocate for opposite party, upon perusing the material on record, hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum made the following: 

O R D E R

Per Sri M.V.L.Radha Krishna Murthy, Member:

                This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant praying to direct the opposite party for furnishing information as per RTI Act and to direct the opposite party to pay damages of Rs.14,00,000/- as per Annexure-B.

The averments of complaint in brief are as follows:

                The opposite party is an undertaking of the Government of India and the same is a public authority within the meaning of Article 128 of Constitution of India.  The complainant sought certain information from opposite party through her registered legal notices dt.18-12-07, 27-02-08 and 01-03-08 under Right to Information Act relating to her family property leased to opposite party and dues stressing the urgent and immediate nature of information.  The opposite party has not furnished even single word of information called through the letter of complainant in all the two years and due to deficiency of service and negligence of opposite party, complainant suffered financial loss and untold suffering.  The opposite party has failed in his duties and statutory obligations in furnishing information.  Certain crucial and important information was required to establish facts in her suit OS 103/08.  As such she has solicited information through her above mentioned letters.  As opposite party has failed to furnish information as per RTI Act, the complainant has preferred her appeal to Central Information Commission.  The Chief Commissioner has delivered the following decision:

                “As there is no denial of information, the appellant is advised to seek inspection of the relevant records so as to specify the required information, which should be furnished as per provisions of the Act”        

                After protracted correspondence, opposite party through their letter dt.06-02-09 has informed that certain records were available for inspection but opposite party has never permitted complainant or her representative to inspect the records.  Once again after 22 faxes and 15 letters sent through courier, opposite party has furnished clumsy Xerox copies without certifying them vide letter dt.25-04-09.  As per CIC decision, the complainant has specified the information on the basis of records available and sought information through her letter dt.28-04-09 and remitted Rs.100/- by means of DD dt.24-04-09 drawn on Mumbai in favour of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited as directed by opposite party.  The information solicited was furnished in Annexure-A for which opposite party has not provided any word of information till date though it is a statutory obligation on the part of opposite party as per RTI Act. Meanwhile, the suit filed by complainant was dismissed on 04-11-09 with costs of Rs.2,71,999/- and if complainant fails to appeal before High Court before 04-02-10, she may likely be imprisoned as she is not in a position to pay costs as she belongs to BPL Status.  Has opposite party furnished information, the complainant suit should have never been dismissed at any costs.   Due to deficiency of services, the complainant has lost one crore worth of property forever and also lost litigation expenses shown in Annexure-B  

ANNEXURE A

Specified Information solicited by complainant P.Sugunavati as per her letter dt.28^th Apr,09 as per CIC Decision but not furnished by Bharat Petroleum Corporation opposite party now solicited through District Forum, Guntur.

Second page of complainant letter dt.25^th Apr,09 not replied

“It was admitted that the following information was readily available in your records as per AMM letter dt.6^th Feb,09 and CPIO letter BPCLD/R/2008/657 dt.14-03-08 and the following information is based on the contents of these two letters referred above, hence applicant requests for the following information within 48 hours, by courier with relevant certified copies and for inspection.

Lease matters:

1. After expiry of lease on 30-04-80 whether BPCL has opted for renewal for another twenty years upto 30-04-80, the copy and the agreement by lessor.
2. In 1998 applicant son and lessor has expired, attempts made for extending the lease on what basis lease rental was being paid to VM Sastry, dealer.
3. The process under which BPCL continued to hold the land on lease after expiry of lease period.
4. As per registration deed available with applicant the original title deeds of the leased property was handed over to BPCL while entering into lease.  Whether they are still holding the same and on what grounds.

DUES OF Rs.22,000/-

1. BPCL is silent on the relevant issue about the nature of dues, repayment, acceptance and involvement of VVR Sastry in the issue, deposit of his agricultural land as title deed, memorandum legal opinion etc., and agreement entered with him for repayment of dues of PVK &CO.,
2. What happened to promissory note of Rs.52,000/- executed and when repayments were made on 23-10-64 to a tune of Rs.36,000/- (Rs.28,000/- lease advance rental and Rs.8000/- sale of machinery) how the remaining amount was adjusted.
3. What happened to the machinery purchased by Burma Shell for Rs.8000/- after your purchase and how the machinery was subsequently dealt.   How PVK acquired the machinery and whether the original invoices were taken from PVK & Co that shows the original price and date of purchase and how it was acquired. Any documents in the regard with BPCL, as they have purchased machinery and dealt with them subsequently.
4. How others entered into picture of promissory note of Rs.52,000/- entered by partners of PVK & Co, what is their capacity and securities accepted from them.  To whom and when it was returned by BPCL/Burma Shell.
5. Additional Information: Certain additional information was furnished in last para of the letter of CPIO dt.14-03-08 referred above and copies of relevant records in certified copies.
6. The first page of DPSL Agreement entered into by VV Ramasastry showing constitution and date of dealership.

Please treat this as my last letter and furnish the information within 48 hours in view of the urgency.”

ANNEXURE B

(To the complaint made by Smt.P.Sugunavathi against BPCL in District Forum)

SCHEDULE OF COMPENSATION

Statement showing the extent of damages suffered for award of compensation as a statutory obligation for deficiency that caused irreparable loss of property of worth Rs.one crore

____________________________________________________

                                                                        Rs.

1. Legal expenses in OS 103/08                            1.00,000

2. Expenses for appeal at High Court                       50,000    

3. Actual expenses as per RTI Act                                  25,000

4. Compensation @ Rs.250/- per day Max               25,000

5. Deposit to be made with Forum in case

   Execution of decree in OS 103/08

  Expenses for defendants                                     3,00,000

6. Deposit with Forum as

   Stamp duty for filing of declaration suit as

  Suit was dismissed due to their deficiency            8,00,000

7. Compensation for loss of lease rentals

   For six months at Guntur Municipal

  Corporation approved rate of Rs.8/- per sq.ft.

  And my proportionate share                                1,00,000

                                                                     __________

                                                                   Rs.14,00,000

 ___________________________________________________

Rupees fourteen lakh only

                Hence, the complaint. 

The opposite party filed its version, which is in brief as follows:

                The material allegations in the complaint are not true.  The complainant is neither a consumer and opposite party is a seller, which attracts the provisions of CP Act.  The allegations contended in the complaint concerns family disputes and in respect of immovable property and as such it is the matter to be decided by competent Civil Court.  Various listed documents amounting to 30 in serial number are themselves self explanatory and complainant has resorted to vexatious litigation against opposite party.  As per listed documents relied by the complainant, it discloses that the complainant required certain information from opposite party and set forth various petitions to various higher hierarchy of the offices of opposite party.  The complainant also invoked constitutional right invoking intervention of Apex Court of AP State and withdrawn the same in due course for the reasons known to her.  The complainant confirms that necessary information has been furnished but she inturn return to opposite party on the plea that they are not certified copies etc.  These contentions of complainant are covered by the listed documents filed on behalf of complainant.  But she is not pleading inter-alia about the said contents.  The information sought for by the complainant relates to a transaction, which has been done about 30 to 40 years back.  At the relevant time of transaction, the opposite party is erstwhile Burmahshell Corporation, which was acquired by Central Govt. of India during the year 1996.  The erstwhile companies records are very old, as per practice, could have been either destroyed either irrelevant or misplaced as they are very old and not to be kept in record room forever.  Therefore, all the documents are not clearly available with the opposite party and as such whatever information is sought and whatever record that is available is furnished to the complainant.  If there is a redressal for the complainant, it is for the complainant to proceed under the Right to Information Act of 2005 and not invoking the Consumer Protection Act with regard to the other claims resulting her failure of litigation taxing alone the opposite party is absolutely untenable and opposite party is not at all liable to pay any amount to the complainant. The complainant is entertaining vexatious litigation against opposite party and she is liable to pay exemplary costs amounting to Rs.20,000/-.  The complainant contends that the suit filed by her OS 103/09 on file of IV Addl. District Judge, Guntur has been dismissed with costs.  As such this opposite party craves leave to permit the opposite party to treat the plaint copy and the judgment and decree as part and parcel of version.  The IV Addl. District Judge, Guntur while dismissing the said suit allowed costs to a tune of Rs.70,000/- in favour of this opposite party.  Hence, the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

                The complainant and opposite party filed their respective affidavits in support of their contentions reiterating the same.  On behalf of complainant Ex.A1 to A35 are marked and on behalf of opposite party Ex.B1 to B4 are marked. 

Now the points for consideration are

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?
2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?    

POINTS 1 & 2

                The complainant in his complaint stated that she sought information from opposite party through her registered legal notice        dt.18-12-07, 27-02-08 and 01-03-08, which are marked as Exs.A1 to A3 respectively.  A perusal of Exs.A1 to A3 reveals that the information required and sought for therein is not specific and there is no prayer to furnish the information for the points mentioned in Exs.A1 to A3. However, opposite party has given reply and furnished information through their letter dt.14-03-08, which was marked as Ex.A4.  The complainant has also mentioned in his complaint that opposite party has furnished certain information under clumsy Xerox copies without certifying them.  For which opposite party has replied in its letter dt.19-05-09 vide Ex.A28 stating that “as a process we do not certify copies.  We will give only Xerox copies of records and hence, they may be treated as authentic.”  Further complainant without putting application under Right to Information Act she straight away started to address opposite party with registered notices under Ex.A1 to A3 seeking information.  Even for those registered notices, opposite party has furnished information through their letter dt.14-03-08 under Ex.A4.  The complainant has only paid the prescribed fee for obtaining information under Right to Information Act through a DD and sent the same to opposite party along with her application dt.28-04-09 under Ex.A26.  Further opposite party in its letter dt.04-6-08 (Ex.A7) informed the complainant that “the document asked by her is available with BPCL in fiduciary relationship between the principal and the licensee and it has nothing to do with any public activity at large and hence, the information is denied under section 8 (1) (e).  All the documents requested are available in the competent Sub-Registrar office.”  Further the Central Information Commission in its letter   dt.28-08-08 (Ex.A8) informed its decision to the complainant as follows:

                “As there is no denial of information, the appellant is advised to seek inspection of relevant records so as to specify the required information, which should be furnished as per the provisions of the Act”   

                Thus the Central Information Commission also advised the complainant to seek inspection of relevant records so as to specify the required information since the information sought for by the complainant is not specific.  Further opposite party has also informed the complainant through their letter dt.06-02-09 (Ex.A9) that certain documents are available at their retail territory office at Vijayawada and advised the complainant to inspect the said documents by informing them a suitable date of inspection. But the complainant without inspecting the said documents as per the advice of opposite party, sought to furnish the Xerox copies of those documents. Further the complainant filed first appeal before First Appellant Authority under Right to Information Act on 06-04-09 requesting to direct AMM to send certified copies of documents by speed post.  Thereafter, the opposite party gave reply through their letter dt.02-06-09 vide Ex.A29 stating that “in respect of certified copies of sought by you, which are more than 20 years old I am informed that originals are not available with us and hence, certified copies of said documents cannot be provided.”  Further on 29-06-10 opposite party addressed a letter under Ex.B3 to opposite party stating that “________.all the available documents have already been provided to you by the AMM, Hyderabad.  Further you may inspect the subject file personally or through authorized representative the General Manager (R) Office and identify other documents required by you.  Copies of such documents if any can be obtained by said office.  Further opposite party has also addressed another letter to complainant dt.07-09-10 vide Ex.B4 that “kindly make it convenient to visit our office on 14-09-10 at 11 am to inspect the documents that are available in this office”.  Thus opposite party has also advised the complainant under Ex.B3 and B4 also to visit their office to identify the required documents.  Inspite of the same, the complainant has not visited the office of opposite party.  Thus as already stated above, the complainant has not requested the opposite party to furnish the required information with specific and proper description of documents and failed to inspect the office of opposite party inspite of the advice of opposite party to identify the required documents and in order to specify the required information.

                A perusal of Ex.A31 i.e., order copy of writ petition 1710/09 on the file of High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad shows the complainant herein filed the said writ petition for a direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to inspect the relevant records and also sought permission of court to withdraw the said writ petition on the ground that certain information has been furnished by opposite parties and that the complainant herein does not have any subsisting grievance vis-à-vis opposite party herein.    

                Thus in view of the foregoing discussion, we find no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party in furnishing information to complainant and that therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 

                In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.  

Typed to my dictation by the Junior Steno, corrected by us and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 26^th day of April, 2011.

                  Sd/-XXX                      Sd/-XXX                            Sd/-XXX

          MEMBER                               MEMBER                            PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

                                        DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For Opposite Party:                                                                           

                                                                             PRESIDENT