Extract Order No. 3 dtd.28.02.2024
None appears for Complainant. Complaint has been received through E-filing & posted for admission on 27.02.2024 but the Complainant did not appear for which the same was also uploaded in website regarding posting of the case today and was also intimated through E-mail.
The Complainant has filed protest petition through E-filing stating as under-
To,
The Registrar
DCDRC, Kendrapara
Subject : Protect petition against the intimation received vide Consumer case No.30 of 2024.
Sir,
Please be informed that the DCDRC cannot compel any complainant to be present before it or its member during the admission hearing even if the complaint is filed in written.
01. That, the DCDRC does not have any power, permission and right to conduct admission hearing as it is the duty of the registrar to admit the same within 21 days and place the same before the commission for further issued of process.
02. That, the complainant being the lady and widow and a PARADANASHENEE woman belongs to the Muslim community cannot be compelled be present before the commission.
03. That, the DCDRC, Kendrapara cannot issued any notice without any signature of the member and president and cannot upload the same to the CONFONET portal violating the direction of the apex court which can attract a contempt proceeding.
04. That, the section 36 of CPA-2019 and others prohibits the conduct of admission hearing as the complainant has reason to believe that nothing is done to comply with the provision of new enactment of 2019 as the officers of the DCDRC are using the same old procedure only to harass te domiciles of the state and ABALBRUDDHAVANITA.
05. That, members of the DCDRC are advised "KARDE SE COMMISSION CHALA LO WARNA RESIGN KAR DO, NAHI TO SABHI FORUMS ME BAITHA DIYE JAWOGE" because you people are not above the law.
So, the commission is requested to admit the case and issued further process and decide the case on merit in compliance of the provision of section 36 and other be ready to face the law of the land as the officers of the commissions are not above the law.
Awaiting a favorable response from your side.
Thanking you.
Yours Faithfully.
Mrs. Hasina Bibi
W/o. Sk Haedar
O/o. Advocates' Chamber
( Orissa High Court )
Sector- 6, Markat Nagar
Cuttack - 753014, Odisha
Ph : 9348105872.
Section 36(2) of C.P.Act, 2019 states as under-
“ On receipt of a complaint made under section 35, the District Commission may by order, admit the complaint for being proceeded with or reject the same:
Provided that a complaint shall not be rejected under this section unless an opportunity or being heard has been given to the Complainant.
Provided further that the admissibility of the complaint shall ordinarily be decided within twenty-one days from the date on which the complaint was filed”.
The aforesaid section clearly stipulated under the rules that District Commission may admit the consumer complaint or reject the same. Since the C.C was placed for admission in order to give an opportunity of being heard, we had intimated the complainant and her advocate to remain present and participate in admission today i.e, on dt. 28.02.2024. So that she cannot object that reasonable opportunity was not given by this Commission but complainant has filed protest petition stating as above.
Brief fact of the case is that Complainant being aggrieved by non supply of information under RTI Act, 2005 has filed the consumer complaint U/s-35 of C.P.Act, 2019 seeking compensation of Rs. 5 Lakhs for loss of legal work, Rs. 30,000/- (Thirty thousand) for other expenses, Rs. 20 Lakhs harassment and mental agony and 1 crore to consumer welfare fund.
The Complainant being aggrieved by non supply of information under RTI Act, 2005 has filed the present consumer complaint seeking aforesaid relief.
As per section 19 of RTI Act there is provision of Appeal under RTI Act and power to impose cost vest with the 2nd Appellate / Revisional Authority. It is also settled position of law that RTI authorities are not amenable to the jurisdiction of this Commission. Paying fees to get information under RTI Act, 2005 is not coming within the perview of C.P.Act, 2019 and there is neither any deficiency in service nor unfair Trade Practice as stipulated under Section 2(11) and 2(47) of C.P.Act, 2019. As such we find no merit in the consumer complaint and accordingly the C.C.Case No. 30/2024 is hereby dismissed. We award cost of Rs. 10,000/-(Ten Thousand) to be paid by Complainant for filing frivolous petition, which shall be deposited by complainant in State Consumer Welfare Fund of Odisha within 45 days and file receipt before this Commission on or before dt. 30.04.2024, failing which Suomoto E.A. shall be initiated against the Complainant.
Sd/- Sd/-
Member President
