This appeal is directed against the final order of Ld. D.C.D.R.F, Uttar Dinajpur dated 12/12/2018 in connection with CC/32/2018. The fact of the case in brief is that the complainant BR. Mitra inherited some property from his father for which he had to face a vesting case over such property initiated by the land reforms department. Ultimately, which was divested in a case before the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta in the year 2011 and the copy of order was submitted before the concerned BLLRO for mutation of record of rights. The concerned BLLRO office did not take any initiative for such mutation and for that reason, he submitted an application under RTI Act for seeking some information which was not supplied to him by concerned land department and ultimately a reply was given to him which was not as per the questions he submitted before the authority. So, he registered an appeal against the reply of BLLRO, Itahar before the DLLRO, Uttar Dinajpur. And in that appeal case BLLRO, Itahar was asked to supply the correct reply to the complainant. Ultimately, the concerned authority did not furnish him correct reply against the RTI application of the complainant for which he suffered harassment and felt that there was deficiency of service on the part of the concerned land authority and for that reason, he claimed compensation. The said consumer complaint was contested by the Ops to this case that is BLLRO, Itahar and DLLRO, Uttar Dinajpur who contested the case on the ground that consumer forum had no jurisdiction to sit with this dispute as per provisions of RTI Act. Ld. Forum after recording the evidences of complainant and after hearing both sides has decided that in this particular case, the concerned department could not tender satisfactory answer to the complainant against his RTI information and there was definitely latches and for that reason, the consumer dispute was answered in favour of the complainant which has been challenged in the appeal by the op to that case on the ground that observation of Ld. Forum was beyond jurisdiction and contrary to exact provisions of law. The appeal was admitted and notice was served to the complainant who has contested the case through Ld. Advocate before this Commission. The hearing of the appeal was conducted through Ld. GP of Govt. of West Bengal on behalf of appellant.

DECISION WITH REASONS

            After hearing ld. Advocate of the appellant as well as Ld. Advocate of the respondent it appears to us that the appellant BLLRO, Itahar in his pleading before the Ld. Forum has categorically admitted the allegations of the complainant that there was some short comings on the part of BLLRO, Itahar in furnishing the correct reply to the question raised by the complainant in his petition under the RTI Act. But he intended to avoid the proceedings of Ld. Forum on the ground that if there was any inaction on his part then the complainant had the liberty to move before the LRTT of West Bengal by registering a contempt proceeding. Now the question is deficiency of service on the part of the appellant can come under the purview of Consumer Protection Act or not. This is the moot question in this case to be answered very carefully in the present position of law. Ld. Forum has relied upon the judicial decision of Hon’ble NCDRC in revision petition no. 1975 of 2005 where it was held vide order dated 28/05/2009 that District Consumer Redressal Forum has got the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in respect of deficiency of service against the authority who has not provided the correct information to the person who has tendered application for seeking some information under the protection of RTI Act. The fact remains that DLLRO, Uttar Dinajpur in his appeal case has instructed the BLLRO, Itahar to supply the correct reply to the complainant in view of the petition of RTI Act and in spite of the direction of the appellate authority the BLLRO, Itahar did not properly comply the said order. He has intentionally and deliberately did not supply the correct and relevant answer and Ld. Forum considered it a fit case of deficiency of service on his part.

During the course of hearing of the appeal the respondent again referred the said judicial decision of Hon’ble NCDRC and argued that though section 23 of RTI Act bars the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in case of any dispute under the RTI Act, but consumer forum has got a powerful jurisdiction under Section 3 of the said Act to entertain any dispute cropped up under the provisions of RTI Act and Section 23 does not prevent the Forum to entertain this complaint. It is argued that if any person seeks any information under the RTI Act he must be treated as a consumer as at the time of filing any RTI letter, it is mandatory to pay fees of Rs. 10/- as court fee or IPO. And for a non-supplying of any information should be treated as deficiency of service. During the course of hearing Ld. Advocate of the appellant referred a judicial decision in RP no. 3146 of 2012 where Hon’ble National Commission in that particular case held that RTI Act is a complete code in itself which provides a technical and effective remedy to the person aggrieved from any decision or inaction or omission of a CPIO or PIO. Not only that the RTI Act also provides two appeal scopes and also provides opportunity for a complaint to the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission. And it was after hearing the parties observed in that case that when a right is created by a statute which also provides for an adequate and satisfactory alternative remedy for enforcement of the said right. The person seeking to enforce such a right must necessarily take recourse to the redressal mechanism but forum cannot be approached for enforcement of such a right. And Hon’ble Commission thinks that this legal exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court under RTI Act are equally applicable to other Forums such as a consumer forum. So, in view of this observation of the Hon’ble NCDRC Ld. pleader of the appellant mentioned before this Commission that the order of Ld. Consumer Forum, Uttar Dinajpur is not justified in accordance with law and liable to be set aside.

After consulting the two back to back decisions of the Hon’ble NCDRC as referred above we find that in the first case, the Hon’ble National Commission was pleased to observe that any deficiency of service on the part under the appeal of the authority of the RTI Act should be treated as deficiency of service under the umbrella of Consumer Protection Act while in the latest judgment of Hon’ble NCDRC it was held that according to the provision of Section 23 of RTI Act the consumer forum has got no power to entertain any dispute arises under the RTI Act. Now the question is in this particular case in our hand we shall have to decide whether not furnishing the correct reply of the RTI application of the respondent shall be deemed to be deficiency of service on the part of the proper authority or not. Ld. Advocate of the respondent referred a judicial decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) no. 4272 of 2015 dated 16/09/2019, where the Hon’ble Apex Court in that judgment held that the Consumer Protection Act has a wide reach and the Commission has jurisdiction even in cases of service rendered by statutory and public authority. Such authorities become liable to compensate for misfeasance in public office that is an act which is oppressive or capricious or arbitrary or negligent provided loss or injury is suffered by a citizen. In that particular case, the Hon’ble Apex Court also held that in case of receiving a fee is meant for providing special benefit to the person who has spent the said fee. And in that case, service means service of any description which is made available to potential users.  The purpose of leaving this provision open ended without provided an exhaustive list indicates the requirement for a redressal interpretation broadly speaking it is inclusive of all those services performed for a consideration except gratitious services and contract of personal services. Here in this particular case, the complainant/respondent filed an application by paying prescribed fees for seeking some replies from the BLLRO, Itahar who did not furnish him the correct reply. Then the complainant moved before the appellate authority that is DLLRO, Uttar Dinajpur who disposed of the appeal in favour of the complainant and asked the BLLRO, Itahar to supply the correct reply to the complainant/respondent. But in spite of the specific order of appellate authority the BLLRO intentionally did not supply the reply in proper and correct manner. So, the observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) no. 4272 of 2015 very much attracts this case in a strong way as because here in this particular case, the act of BLLRO appears to be oppressive, capricious and negligent causing serious injury to the person who comes to get relief under the direction of RTI Act and in this particular case the dispute has rightly adjudicated by the Ld. Forum as because no Government Servant should be absolved from the liability while at the time of discharging his official duties caused serious injury to the right of a person and such person should be compensated under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as because sufficient relieves are provided to such a consumer invoking the Section 3 of the said Act.

The Hon’ble National Commission (1991 CPR 171) has strongly observed that sec 3 of CP Act, 1986 gives the consumer an additional remedy besides those which may be available under any other existing law. In this particular case the respondent had the option to move before the Ld. Forum though separate relieves was there in voking the provisions of RTI Act. This position has been strengthen by the judgement of Hon’ble apex court delivered in this year 2019 in SLP(C) no 4272 of 2015 mentioned above where it was held the power of the consumer forum extends to redressing any injustice rendered upon a consumer as well as over any malafide, capricious or any oppressing act done by a statutory body.

Thus, we find that in the instant appeal there was no merit in the case of the appellant. However, for the interest of justice, the Commission thinks it fit that the order of Ld. Forum should be effected not from the date of passing the final order dated 12/12/2018 but from the date of confirmation of this order by this Commission today.

Hence it is,

ORDERED

            That the appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest without any cost. The final order of Ld. D.C.D.R.F, Uttar Dinajpur dated 12/12/2018 in connection with CC/32/2018 is hereby confirmed subject to enforcement of the order shall take place from today and if the appellant fails to comply the said order within 45 days then 5 per cent per annum as simple interest will be carried on over the awarded money.

Let a copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost and the same be communicated to the concerned Forum through e-mail.