IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli<br /> B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - President <br /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 450/09 DATED 08.12.2009<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant A.V.Murthy, Member, Karnataka State Rytha Sangha and hasiru Sene, Back side of Old Bus Stzand, Chamarajanagara, Camp:No.13, “Sopana”, Main Road, Gorishanakara Nagara,<br /> Mysore-25.<br /> <br /> (INPERSON)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Party Chief Engineer (Electric), CHESCOM, Mysore Range, No.1633, Sri Annapurneshwari Complex, 1st Cross, Anikethana Road (North), P & A Block, Kuvempunagara, Mysroe-570023.<br /> <br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 05.12.2009<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : -<br /> Date of order : 08.12.2009<br /> Duration of Proceeding : -<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. Complainant has filed the complaint against the opposite party, seeking a direction to furnish copy of the document and also, compensation and cost of the proceedings.<br /> <br /> 2. Considering the facts alleged in the complaint, we have heard the complainant regarding maintainability and perused the records. <br /> <br /> 3. Now, we have to consider, whether the complaint is maintainable?<br /> <br /> 4. For the following reasons, our finding is in negative.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 5. Point no. 1:- At the outset, Chief Engineer is the opposite party, but not the officer under the Right to Information Act. It is not clear, whether opposite party himself is the officer or otherwise.<br /> <br /> 6. In the complaint, the relief sought by the complainant is that, certified copy of the affidavit submitted by the opposite party may be directed to be furnished. The complainant has alleged that, he had sought certain documents from the opposite party by filing an application under Right to Information Act. What are all those documents he had sought cannot be made out from the records. However, on the basis of the documents furnished with list by the opposite party, copy of which is on record, the complainant submitted that, the affidavit is not furnished. On third page at 5(e), the information sought was Writ Appeal copy. In this regard, the opposite party has replied that, the copy is not available. When it was the Writ Appeal filed by one Kashipathi and since, the opposite party has stated that, copy of the said Writ appeal is not available in the office, the opposite party cannot be compelled to furnish the information or copy of such document. That has been duly intimated by the opposite party to the complainant. Moreover, it is relevant to note that, the opposite party has furnished copies of as many as 95 pages of the records. <br /> <br /> 7. The complainant submitted that, copy of the document has not been furnished, stating that, it is in the Court. When particular copy or affidavit is in the Court, the opposite party has informed the same to the complainant and hence, opposite party is under no obligation to furnish the document. Under the circumstances, present complaint is not maintainable and accordingly, we pass the following order:-<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is dismissed.<br /> 2. Give a copy of this order to the complainant according to Rules.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 8th December 2009)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />