Punjab

StateCommission

FA/910/2013

Public Information Officer - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bhagwan Dass. - Opp.Party(s)

Atul Arya, Aditya Arya

10 Feb 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PUNJAB DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.

 

 

  First Appeal No.910 of 2013                                                    

Date of institution  :    23.08.2013

Date of decision     :   10.02.2015

 

 

1.      Public Information Officer/Assistant Public Information Officer,         Improvement Trust, Sangrur.

2.      Improvement Trust, Sangrur, through its Executive Officer.

 

…….Appellants/Opposite Parties

Versus

Bhagwan Dass Advocate S/o late Sh. Ishwar Chand, R/o Magzine Street, near Ram Puliwala, Sangrur.

                                                          …Respondent/Complainant

First Appeal against the order dated 19.06.2013 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur.

Quorum:- 

 

          Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President.

                        Shri Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member.

                        Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present:-

 

          For the appellants         : Shri Atul Arya, Advocate.

          For the respondent        : Shri Harish Goyal, Advocate.

 

 

JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH,  PRESIDENT :

 

                    This appeal has been preferred by the appellants/ opposite parties against the order dated 19.06.2013 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur (in short, “District Forum”), vide which the complaint filed by Bhagwan Dass, Advocate, respondent/complainant, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was allowed and the opposite parties were directed to pay compensation of Rs.15,000/- for causing mental and physical harassment to him, by committing deficiency in service.

1. The complainant alleged, in his complaint, that he sought information under the RTI Act, 2005 from the opposite parties, vide application dated 03.11.2011 after attaching therewith the Indian Postal Order of Rs.10/- and further agreeing to pay further fee, if required. The opposite parties, intentionally and with a malafide intention, did not supply information to him, though the application was received by them on 03.11.2011 itself. Thereafter, he filed a complaint before the State Information Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh, which directed the opposite parties to pay Rs.10,000/-, as compensation to him. He made complaints to the other authorities also, but the opposite parties failed to supply the information till the filing of the complaint. The same amounts to deficiency in service on their part and adoption of unfair trade practice. He prayed for the issuance of following directions to the opposite parties:-

    

   i)        to provide information sought by him immediately;

   ii)       to pay Rs.88,000/-, as compensation for the mental agony,     harassment and financial loss caused to him; and

   iii)      to pay Rs.11,000/- as counsel fee and litigation expenses.

    

2. The opposite parties filed joint written reply before the District Forum. In the written reply, they admitted that the complainant sought information under the RTI Act, 2005, vide application dated 03.11.2011 and that an appeal was filed by him before the State Information Commission, Punjab. While denying the other allegations made in the complaint, they pleaded that they tried to find the relevant record, regarding which the information was sought and came to know that the said record was in possession of one Raj Kumar, Senior Assistant, who had already retired and did not hand over the charge to the concerned official in spite of the fact that number of letters were written to him. It was after great persuasion that said Raj Kumar handed over the record to Rajesh Kumar, Clerk. On scrutiny of the record, it was found that the application, regarding which the information was sought by the complainant, had either been lost from Raj Kumar or he handed over that application to third person wrongly. As the information sought for by the complainant was not available, so they were unable to provide the same to him. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that there was deficiency in service on their part. They took up legal objections to the effect that the complainant had no cause of action, nor any locus standi to file the complaint and the same was not maintainable in the present form. He is not their consumer and has filed a false complaint. They prayed for the dismissal thereof with costs.

3.           Both the sides produced evidence in support of their respective averments before the District Forum, which after going through the same and hearing learned counsel on their behalf, allowed the complaint, vide aforesaid order.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for both the sides and have carefully gone through the records of the case.

5. Before proceeding with the present appeal, it is to be seen whether the District Forum had the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint in the matters under the RTI Act, 2005? This question has already drawn the attention of this Commission a number of times and it has been repeatedly held that the complainant, seeking information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and feeling aggrieved on account of the non-furnishing of such information or the matters covered under that Act, does not fall under the definition of the “consumer”, as contained in the Consumer Protection Act and the complaint filed by him is not maintainable. Reference in that regard can be made to the following three orders dated 25.10.2013, 21.07.2014 and 26.11.2014, respectively passed in the following appeals:-

    

   i)        First Appeal No.61 of 2012 (G.A. Kumar Vs. Public       Information Officer & Others);

    

   ii)       First Appeal No.1847 of 2011 (The District Education Officer        Vs. Smt. Pushpinderjit Kaur & Another); and

    

   iii)      First Appeal No.765 of 2013 (Public Information Officer Vs. Munish Modi, Advocate).

    

    

6. This question has drawn the attention of the Hon’ble National Commission also and after dealing in detail with the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the Right to Information Act, 2005 and the law on the subject, it was held in [(Sanjay Kumar Mishra & Ors. Vs. Public Information Officer (PIO)] 2015 (1) CPR 171 (NC) as under:-

   “(i) the person seeking information under the provisions of RTI Act cannot be said to be a consumer vis-à-vis the Public Authority concerned or CPIO/PIO nominated by it and (ii) the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora to intervene in the matters arising out of the provisions of the RTI Act is barred by necessary implication as also under the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act. Consequently, no complaint by a person alleging deficiency in services rendered by the CPIO/PIO is maintainable before a Consumer Forum.”

              

7. In view of the law, so laid down by this Commission and the Hon’ble National Commission, it cannot be said that the complainant falls under the definition of the “consumer” and, as such, the complaint filed by him was not maintainable before the District Forum. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the order passed by the District Forum is set aside and the complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed.

8. The sum of Rs.7,500/- deposited at the time of filing of the appeal along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the appellants/opposite parties

9.           The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

    

    

    

                                                           (JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH)

                                                                          PRESIDENT  

                                                            

    

    

                                                           (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON)

                                                                            MEMBER

                                                            

    

    

                                                         (MRS. SURINDER PAL KAUR)

   February 10, 2015                                       MEMBER

   (Gurmeet S)