Present complaint has been filed by Naresh Kumari wife of Krishan Kumar under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date against Life Insurance Corporation of India, Model Town Kapurthala, through its Branch Manager, seeking direction against it to furnish details particulars of the amount lying deposited in the name of Sat Pal at the time of his death and also monetary compensation on account of mental agony<br /> -2-<br /> and physical harassment.<br /> 2. Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is daughter of Shri Sat Pal who died on 2.2.2002 and his mother and wife also expired during his life time. Sat Pal and his wife Bhupinder Rani died intestate and had not executed any Will during the life time. She alongwith other sons and daughters are legal heirs of her father Sat Pal and Bhupinder Rani and as such, she is entitled to 1/5th share in the estate left by her deceased parents. Sat Pal was having life insurance policy in his name with the opposite party, but it failed to furnish detailed particulars regarding the amount lying in the policy of the opposite party. It is alleged that the opposite party in connivance with her brother Rajinder Kumar has illegally or wrongly either paid the amount lying deposited in the name of Sat Pal or had concealed the same. The complainant has sought the direction against the opposite party to furnish the details particulars of the amount lying deposited in the name of Sat Pal with them as it amounts to deficiency in service.<br /> 3. The opposite party appeared and controverted the averments made in the complaint. Preliminary objections have raised that the complainant is not a consumer of the opposite party, nor she has disclosed the policy in the name of Sat Pal. The complaint is also not maintainable because the complainant has already approached the civil court for the present cause of action. The complaint is also not within limitation. On merits, it is denied that the respondent in connivance with Rajinder Kumar has wrongly and illegally paid the amount to him of the alleged policy of Sat Pal. Therefore, there is no question of any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.<br /> -3-<br /> 4. The counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence. affidavit of the complainant as Ex.C1, copy of letter dated 9.10.2006 as Ex.C2 and closed the evidence.<br /> 5. On the other hand, the counsel for the opposite party has tendered into evidence affidavit of Shri S.D. Belwal Ex.R1 and closed the evidence.<br /> 6. We have heard argument of learned counsel for both the parties. The learned counsel for the complainant has urged before us that since the complainant is consumer in respect of Life Insurance Corporation policy in respect of her deceased father lying deposited with the opposite party, the complaint is maintainable and she has right to seek requisite information of the detailed particulars of the policy from the opposite party. On the other hand, it has been counter argued by the counsel for the opposite party that seeking the information regarding the particulars of the alleged policy amount of Sat Pal deceased from the opposite parties does not constitute a deficiency in service unless she establishes her locus-standi to maintain the complaint as a consumer under Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. Moreover, no requisite information can be furnished unless the complainant is helpful to produce sufficient materials before it. It is further urged that civil court has already seized with the present dispute, so the complaint is also not maintainable. <br /> 7. We find considerable merit in the contention of learned counsel for the opposite party. In the instant case, firstly, no death certificate of Sat Pal has been produced and the opposite party has rightly pleaded the ignorance about the death of Sat Pal deceased so <br /> -4-<br /> as to give a cause of action. Secondly the complainant prespouses the Life Insurance policy of her deceased father allegedly maintained by the opposite party without furnishing the requisite information and as such about her status for entitlement to said amount allegedly lying with the opposite party. As a matter of fact, the complainant seeks information about the LIC policy allegedly operated by her father with the opposite party and, as such, this kind of information does not require judicial adjudication under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act.<br /> 8. On the other hand the Parliament with its wisdom has come to the rescue of aggrieved public seeking information in respect of any record documents, memos, E-mail, Circulars from any public authority by enactment of THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005. The Public Authorities of Govt respondents & autonomous corporation like LIC are under obligation under Section 4 of the Act ibid to maintain all its records duly catalogued and indexed in a manner and form which facilitates THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION under this Act and ensure that all records that are appropriate to be computerized are within a reasonable time and subject to availability of resources so that access to such records is facilitated and sub clause (ii) further enjoins upon every Public Authority to take steps in accordance with requirement of clause (b) of Sub Section (i) to provide as much information suo motu to public at regular intervals through various means of communication. The complainant has also the right to move a request in writing under Section 6 of the Act ibid to obtain any information accompanying such fee as may be prescribed to State Public Information Officer <br /> -5-<br /> and the said request has to be disposed of under Section 7of the Act by the State Public Information Officer within 30 days of the receipt of the request. Further the said Public Officer Information officer has also been empowered under Section 18 of the Act ibid to receive and inquire into a complaint, his or her application who has been refused access to any information requested under this Act. Therefore, Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act cannot also be pressed into service in so far as the relief for seeking the information from a Public Authority in respect of public records is concerned. The complainant appears to have been ill-advised to knock at the Consumer Forum under the misconception of expeditious relief by ignoring the relevant provision of law under THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005. The complainant, therefore, neither becomes 'Consumer' nor there appears to be any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties within the purview of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. More so, the counsel for the complainant has not denied the pendency of the civil suit in respect the same subject matter.<br /> 9. In the ultimate analysis of our aforesaid discussion, we do not find any merit in the maintainability of the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Let certified copies of the judgment be sent to the parties through registered post free of costs without any delay. File be consigned to record room.<br /> <br /> DATED: SUDHA SHARMA A.K. SHARMA<br /> 11.12.2007