BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM RAICHUR.
COMPLAINT NO. (DCFR) CC.29/2012
THIS THE 15th DAY OF JUNE 2012.
P R E S E N T
1. Sri. Pampapathi B.sc.B.Lib. LLB PRESIDENT.
2. Sri. Gururaj, B.com.LLB. (Spl) MEMBER.
3. Smt. Pratibha Rani Hiremath,M.A. (Sanskrit) MEMBER
*****
COMPLAINANT :- Sharanappa S/o. Hampanna, Age: 50 years, Occ;
Household, R/o. Post Ramtnal 584143 Tq. Sindhanur, Dist: Raichur.
//VERSUS//
OPPOSITE PARTY :- Assistant Executive Officer, Taluka Panchayat
Sindhanur, Dist: Raichur.
CLAIM :- For to direct the opposite to pay an amount of Rs. 20,000/- as a compensation, Rs. 10,000/- as a mental harassment and Rs. 10,000/- cost of the litigation and direction to issue all information as sought under the applications.
Date of institution :- 23-04-12.
Notice served :- 11-05-12.
Date of disposal :- 15-06-12.
Complainant represented In Person.
Opposite is Ex-parte.
***
This case coming for final disposal before us, the Forum on considering the entire material and evidence placed on record by the parties passed the following.
JUDGEMENT
By Sri. Gururaj, Member:-
This is a complaint filed by the complainant Sharanappa against Opposite Assistant Executive Officer, Taluka Panchayat, Sindhanoor, Dist: Raichur U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to direct the opposite to pay an amount of Rs. 20,000/- as a compensation, Rs. 10,000/- as a mental harassment and Rs. 10,000/- cost of the litigation and direction to issue all information as sought under the applications.
2. The brief facts of the complainant case are that, the complainant has moved two applications U/section 6(1) & 7(1) of Right To Information Act 2005 by paying prescribed fees of Rs. 10/- each through IPO Nos. 00F366748 and 00F366715 dt. 28-09-2011 before the Respondent seeking to issue the documents i.e, certified copy of the vouchers along with bills pertaining to the details of expenditure for the year 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 in respect of Sindhanoor Taluka Panchayat Development Fund and other documents i.e, certified copy of the vouchers in respect of money spent under Sindhanoor Taluka Panchayat Own Fund pertaining to the year 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 but, even after the reminder letters dt. 19-11-2011, 05-12-2011, 15-12-2011, 29-12-2011 & 06-01-2012 the Respondent has not given the information sought by the complainant. Hence, he has filed the present complaint seeking the relief as prayed in the prayer column.
3. That even inspite of service of the notice from this Forum, the opposite remained absent, hence he placed Ex-parte vide order dt. 11-05-2012.
4. In-view of the pleadings of the complaint and evidence placed before this Forum. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that:
1. Whether the complainant proves that, he moved an application under Right to Information Act 2005 for to get the necessary documents by the opposite and opposite inspite of several reminders he fails to issue the same and found guilty under deficiency in its service.?
2. Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in the complaint.
3. What order?
5. Our findings on the above points are as under:-
(1) In the affirmative.
(2) As discussed in the body of this judgement and as sated in the final order.
(3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos- 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the final order for the following :
REASONS
POINT NO.1 & 2:-
6. To prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit-evidence of the of the complainant firm was filed, he was noted as PW-1. Documents Ex.P-1 Ex.P1(a), Ex.P-2 & Ex.P-2(a) marked as per order sheet dt. 13-06-2012. Since Opposite remained Ex-parte. No affidavit-evidence and documents filed.
7. The complainant in order to prove his case, he has filed four documents under Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-4. We have perused the documents filed by the complainant and it is very clear that, he has moved application before the opposite seeking the documents as prayed in the complaint. This fact would goes to show that, the complainant has sought the documents by paying prescribed fee through IPO and opposite inspite of service of the notice, he remained absent, this itself would goes to show that, he has not provided the documents well within the prescribed period as alleged by the complainant in his complaint and that itself clearly goes to show that, the opposite has failed to perform his duty and thereby deficiency in service is caused on his part. Now the question before us is that, whether the complainant is entitled to the relief’s as prayed in his complaint, through this Forum or not and this Forum has got jurisdiction to entertain the complaint or not, as the application field by the complainant for to seeking the relief was under RTI Act, as it is an special Act to provide such relief and availability of specific provision U/sec. 7 of Karnataka Right To Information Act for to perform appeal before the competent authority in case of non issue of documents sought under the said Act. No doubt there is an appeal provision under RTI Act against the authority, one who has failed to perform his duty, but section 11 of the Karnataka Right To Information Act does not have any over riding affect on the Consumer Protection Act 1986. Further, section 3 of the C.P. Act provides an additional remedy to file such complaint and seek the relief before the Consumer For a, hence, the bar of jurisdiction U/sec. 10 of the KRTI Act is not applicable. In this regard, we have referred the ruling of our Hon’ble National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, New Delhi judgment in Revision Petition No. 1975 of 2005 dated 28-05-2009 of Dr. S.P. Tirumala Rao V/s. Municipal Commissioner, Mysore City Corporation. Wherein the Hon’ble National Commission has clearly held that, when the concerned officer has failed to make his duty under RTI Act then, the affected person can approach the Consumer Redressal Forum and sought the relief for the purpose of getting the compensation for his suffering. Further, it is clearly held that, when any one application filed under RTI Act by paying an amount then, that application would fall within he scope and ambit of section 2(1)(o) of C.P. Act. Here, in this case also the complainant has filed his applications by paying Rs. 10/- each under Ex.P-1(a) & Ex.P-2(a) for to get information/documents and same were not supplied. The opposite is the service provider, but has failed to provide his service and thereby he has committed deficiency in service and same will comes under the ambit of section 2(1)(o) of C.P. Act. Hence, we have followed the dictum laid down under the above said judgment by the Hon’ble National Commission which is a case of Karnataka.
8. That, in the above circumstances, though the opposite has placed Ex-parte we have considered the pleadings of the complainant and documents filed by him with affidavit-evidence and dictums laid down under the rulings of Hon’ble National Commission, we have come to the conclusion that, the complainant has proved his case against the opposite for deficiency in service on the part of the opposite and thereby we answered Point No-1 in affirmative
9. As regards to the compensation is concerned, the claim of the complainant is excessive and exorbitant one. The complainant has not produced any documents to show that, he has suffered a loss to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- and suffered with mental harassment upto the tune of Rs. 10,000/-. Hence we have not accepted the claim of the complainant to that extent. Further, he has also claimed Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of the proceedings is also excessive one in our view, hence we have not accepted that quantum of amount. However keeping in the mind about the deficiency in service committed by opposite is concerned and effort made by the complainant, we have come to the conclusion Rs. 10,000/- is the right amount for to grant global compensation to the complainant, hence we have awarded Rs. 10,000/- including cost of the petition, deficiency in service and compensation as sought under the complaint. As regards to the direction against the opposite regarding to provide the information is concerned, the claim of the complainant is hereby rejected as it is not the case of this Forum. Accordingly we answered Point No-2.
POINT NO.3:-
10. In view of our findings on Point Nos-1 & 2 we proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed.
The complainant is entitled to recover a total amount of Rs. 10,000/- from the opposite.
Complainant also entitled to get interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on Rs. 10,000/- from the date of this complaint till realization of the full amount.
The claim of the complainant regarding issuance of direction against the opposite for to provide the information as sought under RTI Act is hereby rejected.
Opposite is given one month time from the date of the judgment for making payment of the above said amount of Rs. 10,000/- with interest as stated above to the complainant.
Intimate the parties accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 15-06-12)
Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Sri. Gururaj Sri. Pampapathi,
Member. Member. President,
District Consumer Forum Raichur. District Consumer Forum Raichur. District Consumer Forum Raichur.
