The complainant Shivchandra Trivedi (complainant) has    filed this complaint petition against public information officer    cum Civil Surgeon Sadar Hospital,  Muzaffarpur for realization of Rs. 2 lacs as compensation with 9 % p.a. interest from the filing of complaint petition till realization,  for physical and mental harassment  and for litigation cost.

The brief, facts of the case is that   the complainant  sought an information from  o.p in respect of payment of rent of his house situated at Chaushima in which health centre was running since 1992. The further case is that after receiving his application,  Civil  Surgeon Muzaffarpur sought time for providing information, after receiving the same from health sub centre incharge Chausima,.  The further case is that the o.p didn’t provide the information and lastly on 19-02-2015, he denied to provide the information, so the complainant filed this complaint petition for compensation for deficiency in service.

The complainant has filed the following documents with the complaint petition - photocopy of  application for getting information under Right to Information Act annexure-1, photocopy of  postal receipt annexure-2,

On Issuance of notice the  o.p didn’t appear and vide order dated 12-08-2015, this forum proceeded Ex. Party  against o.p.

The complainant  has examined himself on affidavit as Aw-1. He has also produced Pramod Kumar Choudhary  who  has  filed his evidence on affidavit as Aw-2.

Heard learned lawyer for the complainant. The learned lawyer for complainant relied on the findings of  Hon’ble N.C.D.R.C bill passed in revision petition no.- 1975/2005, in the case of Dr. S.P. Trirumala Rai V/s Municipal Corporation Mysore City, order dated  28-05-2009. He further  submit that there is deficiency on the part of o.p.  as he  has not provided information after taking requisite fee for the same

The main question for determination is as to whether  this case is maintainable or not  and whether there is any deficiency  on the  part of o.p or not?

The core question, that falls, for consideration, is, as to whether, the District Forum had Jurisdiction, to entertain  and decide the complaint, under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986,  or not. It may be stated here, that under section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, additional remedy is  provided for speedy, inexpensive and affordable relief, to the consumers, but that would be available, where there is no express bar, under some Statutory provisions. Such bar is apparent, if we refer to section 23 of the Right to Information Act, 2005,  which reads as under;-

23. “Bar of jurisdiction of Courts: No Court shall entertain any suit, application or other proceeding in respect of any order made, under this Act, and no such order shall be called in question, otherwise than by way of an appeal under this Act.”

It was held in Patel Roadways Limited vs Biral Yamaha Limited (2000) 4 SCC 91, that a complaint before the Consumer Forum falls within the ambit of word ‘Suit’. Further the expression ‘Court’ used in the aforesaid section is an generic term taking within its sweep all the Authorities, having the trappings of the Court. As Consumer Forum are having the trappings of the Court and are, in fact, specifically conferred the same powers, as are vested in a Civil Court under the Code of  Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) in respect of the matters listed in section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the Consumer Forums are covered within the expression “Court”. In Trans Mediterranean Airways Vs. M/S Universal Exports and another (2011 (4) RCR (Civil) 472 (SC), it was held as under:-

“The use of the word “Court” in rule 29 of the Second Schedule of the CP Act has been borrowed from the Warsaw Convention. We are of the view that the world “Court” has not been used in the strict sense in the Convention as has come to be in our procedural law.  The world “Court has been employed  to mean a body that  adjudicate a dispute arising under the provisions of the CP Act. The CP Act gives the District Forum, State Forums and National Commission, the power to decide disputes of consumers.  The jurisdiction, the power and procedure of these forums are all clearly enumerated by the CP Act. Though, these Forums decide matters after following a summary procedure, their main function is still to decide disputes, which is the main function and purpose of a  Court . We are of the view that for  the purpose of the CP Act and the Warsaw convention, the Consumer Forum can fall within the meaning of the expression “Court”.

The perusal of the provisions of section 23 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, extracted above. Reveals that, no court shall entertain any suit, application or other proceeding, in respect of  any order made under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and no such order shall be called, in question, otherwise than byway of an appeal under the Right to Information Act, 2005. Section 19 (8) (b) of the Right to Information Act 2005, also empowers the Central Information Commission, or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, to require the public authority, to compensate the  complainant, for any loss or other detriment suffered. Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, empowers the Central Information Commission or the ;State Information Commission, as the case may be, to impose penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees for each day till the information is furnished, but the total amount of such penalty, shall not exceed twenty five thousand  rupees. In the instant case the complainant, in the complaint, claimed one of the directions to the opposite parties to pay compensation. It may be stated here, that such compensation/penalty could be awarded, under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, and not by way of filing a complaint, under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In Sanjay Kumar Mishra Vs. PIO State Information Commission (sic) and another, I (2015) CPJ 335, a three Member Bench of the National Commission also ruled that the Jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora  to intervene in the matters arising out of the  provisions of the RTI Act was barred by necessary implication as also under the provisions of the said Act. So, it is held that the Jurisdiction of the District Forum was barred, under the provisions of Section 23 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

The next question, that falls for consideration, is as to, what is the effect of Section 3 of the  Consumer Protection Act, 1986,  which provides that the provisions of the Act, are in addition to, and not in derogation of the provisions of  any other law, for the time being, in force. This part of the  Section is to be divided into two parts, namely (1) in addition to the provisions of any other law, for the time being , in  force, and (2) the provisions of the Act are not in derogation of the provisions of any other law, for the time being, in force. For the first part, the effect of the aforesaid provision, is that even if there is an alternative remedy available under some provision of any  other Act, or, say, even if Civil Suit is maintainable, for a particular cause, the proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, are maintainable. The reason being, it is an additional speedy remedy provided to the consumers.

However, with regard to the second part, namely, not in derogation of the provisions of any other law, for the time being, in force, would mean that it is not in abrogation, repeal or deviation of any law, which is in force. This would mean that where there is an express bar to initiate proceedings, in any overriding effect. Once there is bar created under the Statute giving exclusive jurisdiction, to the Court or the Tribunal, the provision that excludes the Jurisdiction of the other Court or Tribunal will be effective and the proceedings could not be initiated, in any other tribunal/Forum or the  Court, except the Forum constituted under the provisions of the said Act. Similar principle of law, was laid down in   Pundalika Vs. Revenue Department                ( Service Division ) Government of Karnataka, Revision petition No.- 4061 of 2010, decided by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi vide order dated 31-03-2011 and Sanjay Kumar Mishra’s case (supra). The facts of  T. Pundalika’s case (supra) were that the complainant with a view to sort out the controversy with  respect to his pensionary benefits, filed an application under the Karnataka Right to Information Act, 2002, seeking information. The opposite party, in that case, failed to provide the information. The complainant then filed a  complaint, before the District Forum, which was allowed, and a direction was issued to the opposite party, to furnish the required information. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal, before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, was filed, which was allowed, with the observations, that the complainant could not be considered as a consumer, as defined under the  Consumer Protection Act, 1986, since there was a remedy available to him, to approach the Appellate Authority, under Section 19 of the Karnataka Right to Information Act, 2002. Feeling aggrieved against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commsion, Revision Petition, aforesaid was filed before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission , New Delhi. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission , New Delhi in the aforesaid case, held that the appellant  could not claim himself, to be a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as there was a remedy available to him , to approach the Appellate Authority under Section 19 of the Right to information Act, 2005. Similar principle of law, was laid down in Ballarpur Industries Ltd. Vs. Eastern Railways and others, 1986-2007 Consumer 11929 (NS), a case decided by a three Member Bench of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission , New Delhi that when the  jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum, was barred by any specific provision of some other Act, then it had no jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint, under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The principle of law, laid down,  in the  aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case.

Whether the complainant fell within the definition of a consumer and whether, in case, the Public Information Officer furnishes the information, under the Right to Information Act, 2005, amounted to rendering of any service. Nominal fee of Rs. 10/- was deposited by the complainant, for seeking information, as provided under the relevant Statute. The Public Information Officer, while supplying  the information, under the Right to Information Act, 2005, discharges his statutory duties. The person feeling aggrieved against non –supply of the information by the Public Information officer, can file first appeal and second appeal. The appellate Authority, while hearing the appeals performs the quasi-judicial functions. The public Information  Officer, therefore, does not render any service to the complainant/applicant, seeking information, under the Right to Information Act, 2005. In S.P Goel Vs. Collector of Stamps Delhi (AIR 1996 839 (SC), it was held that the person presenting a document for registration is not a consumer, within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, nor the Officers appointed under the Registration and Stamps Act, render any service to him but, on the other hand, they perform statutory duties, which are at least quasi-Judicial. The National Commission, In Public Information Officer Vs. Tarun Agrawal, Revision-Petition No. 2846 of 2013, decided on 16-12-2013 and Sanjay Kumar Mishra’s case (supra), observed that the provisions  of sections 22 and 23 of the  Right to Information Act, 2005, are crystal clear and the Commission is certainly not armed with the powers under the same (RTI Act, 2005). It cannot arrogate the powers which do not vest with it. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to instant case. In the present  case, neither the complainant was a consumer, nor the opposite parties, were service providers, nor the  dispute was a consumer dispute, and, as such, the consumer complaint was not maintainable .

The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the Right to Information Act, 2005, has overriding effect, vis-à-vis the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or not. Section 22 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, reads as under:-

“22 Act to have overriding effect- The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding  anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1932 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being, in force, or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this  Act.”

The Right to Information Act, 2005, is an enactment, which is later in date, than the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In Maruti udyog Ltd. Vs. Ram Lal (2005) 2 SCC 638, it was hled that if both the Statutes contain non-obstante clause and are special Statutes, an endeavor  should be made, to give effect to both of them. In case of conflict, the latter shall prevail. In the instant case, both the Statutes contain non-obstante clause. In the case of conflict, the Statute enacted later in date . i.e the  Right to  Information Act, 2005, shall prevail over the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as per the provisions of Section 22 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Once the specific remedy has been provided under the Right to information Act, 2005, under which the complainant sought some information, from the respondents, and according to him he was not supplied the same, then it was  his duty of pursue that remedy till the last. As stated above, once a specific remedy is available under a particular Act, then a Tribunal under any other enactment cannot usurp that Jurisdiction. In case, any information    had not been supplied to the complainant, by the Public Information Officer, he could file an appeal before the first Appellate Authority. In case, his grievance had not been redressed by the first Appellate Authority, then he would file the second appeal before the State Information Commission. If he still felt aggrieved, he could file a writ petition, before the High Court. As Stated above according to  section 19 clauses 8 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, the State Information Commission, or the Central Information Commission, as the case may be, could compensate the complaint, for any loss or detriment suffered.     

In the case of Vijay Kumar  Vs National Institute  of Open schooling  YMCA complex, (RTI) Sector 11-C Chandigarh,  Hon’ble State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission. UT Chandigarh in  first Appeal No. 95/2015   vide order dated 01-05-2015 observed that the jurisdiction of the District Forum, entertaining  and deciding the complaint, was completed barred u/s- 23 of the Right to Information Act 2005. 

In view of the above discussions and observations of Hon’ble S.C. of UT, Chandigarh,  we are of the considered opinion that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and decide this complaint and as such the same is not maintainable before this forum.

 Accordingly, the complaint petition is dismissed.