DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA.

Complaint No.68/16.02.2012

Decided on : 19.04.2012

Sh.Balwinder Kumar S/o Sh.Kishor Chand, Ward No.11, Khana Patti, Bhikhi, Tehsil and District Mansa.

..... Complainant.

VERSUS

1. Director, Education Department (Elementary) Punjab SCO No.66-68, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh.

2. District Education Officer, Elementary Eduction, Mansa.

..... Opposite Parties.

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

.....

Present: Sh.Satinderpal Singh, Advocate counsel for the complainant.

Sh.Major Singh, DEO Elementary Education Mansa, OP No.2 in person and as Authorized Representative for OP No.1.

Before: Sh.S.D.Sharma, President.

Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member.

Sh.Shiv Pal Bansal, Member.

ORDER BY:-

Sh.S.D.Sharma, President

Sh.Balwinder Kumar, complainant (hereinafter referred as to CC for short), has preferred the present complaint against the Opposite parties (hereinafter referred as to OPs for short) on the ground, that CC sought information from OP No.1 and submitted Form “A” on dated 29.12.2011, in order to seek information under Right to Information Act . The application was duly supported with the requisite fee of Rs.50/-, vide IPO No.60G-927748 and the CC sent the same through registered post. In response to his request, CC received letter No.7/9-12A2(4) dated 25.1.2012. from OP No.1 in which the OP No.1 further forwarded the same to OP No.2 with the assurance, that the requisite information will be provided and also that the demanded information belongs to District Mansa. The details of the information sought by the CC is as under:

A. As per the Punjab Govt. Notification No.10/59/07-3C/583-584, how many teachers were to be recruited in the Zila Parishad under Education department and the new recruitment has been stopped in the Education department and how many vacancies are vacant in the primary schools of Punjab till 29.12.2011.

B. The vacant vacancies against the shifted/transferred teachers in each district.

C. The right to education has been implemented by the Education Department and the Education Department has filed affidavit in CWP No.9363 regarding posting of B.Ed. teachers prior to ETT and why the department has not executed the same.

D. To supply the rules regarding shifting/transferring the teachers under the Education Department who could be the employees of the Education Department.

E. If a teacher comes on the vacant post by transfer in the Zila Parishad then the deputation teacher of Education Department shall go back and if no then why ?

F. If the teacher approved his leave for 6 months or above, then he has to take approval from the Education Department.

G. Whether the Education Department shall consider for the recruitment in case of death of any teacher for his legal heirs/family members.

H. How the Education Department shall prepare the seniority list of the transferred teachers and from which date.

It is alleged, that CC had been requesting the office of the OPs regularly, but the OPs have failed to supply the information. It is alleged, that due to the refusal of the OPs to supply the information, the CC is entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.

The complaint is signed by the CC and properly verified.

2. In reply, a number of preliminary objections are raised by the OPs on the ground, that CC had moved an application dated 29.12.2011 and OP No.1 sent the same to OP No.2 on 25.1.201 to provide the requisite information, as the same was with OP No.2 only. It is further averred, that in respect to the said application, OP No.2 provided the required information to the CC vide memo No.A-2/RTI/2011-12/3396-97 dated 17.2.2012 and sent the same by registered post vide receipt dated 18.2.2012. Even memo dated 18.2.2012 had also been endorsed to OP No.1 for information. It is further averred, that OP NO.1 has supplied the requisite information relating to his office vide memo No.7.9.2012/E2(4) dated 19.2.2012 to the CC.

On merits, the OPs have denied the averments of the complaint and have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

Version of the OPs is duly signed by District Education Officer (EE) and is also verified.

3. The CC, in support of his case, has tendered into evidence Ext.C-1 to C-5, which includes his own affidavit, copy of Form 'A' etc. On the other hand, the OPs have tendered into evidence documents Ext.OP-1 to OP-4, which includes affidavit of Sh.Major Singh, District Education Officer (EE), Mansa.

4. We have minutely perused the entire evidence of the parties and after going through the averments of the complaint and version filed by the OPs, are of the view, that CC has failed to make out a case of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

FINAL ORDER

The paramount question before us is whether the CC falls within the definition of the 'Consumer' or not.

It is pertinent to mention here, that there is nothing in the complaint, that in what capacity CC sought the information from the OPs. Moreover, CC has brought no evidence that on whose behalf or who authorized him to seek information from the OPs. It is admitted fact, that CC is also not the office bearer of any Social Organization or a Group of any type who has authorized him to collect information on their behalf.

Moreover, the CC has failed to clear this point, that whether he is having any locus standi to seek the requisite information from the OPs and is a consumer.

The another point which goes against the CC, is that in the entire complaint he has no where mentioned, that OPs have committed any deficiency in service. Further the CC has failed to file any rejoinder against the version of the OP, wherein it is specifically averred, that CC was provided the required information by OP No.1 on 19.2.2012. Moreover, there is nothing in the complaint that OP No.2 received the direction from OP No.1 and then failed to provide the information within 30 days.

We feel OP No.2 provided the information within time to the CC, as the CC has no where alleged any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. We feel, that the present complaint is not filed within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. We feel, Consumer Protection Act is a benevolent legislation and is enacted to benefit simple & genuine consumers. We feel, at the same time, Consumer Forums cannot be allowed to be mis-used in this manner.

(i)   buys any goods, for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or

(ii) hires any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of i.e. first mentioned person;

(e) “Consumer dispute” means a dispute where the person against whom a complaint has been made, denies or disputes the allegations contained in the complaint”.

(g) “Deficiency” means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service”.

(h) “Service” means service of any description which is made available to potential users an includes the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, entertainment amusement or the purveying of news or other information but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service”.

We further feel, that there is no sufficient evidence from the side of the CC produced alongwith the complaint to prove that he is a 'consumer' qua both the OPs.

In view of our above discussion, we do not find any merit in the compliant, as such, the complaint merits dismissal. Let the copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. The concerned Clerk of this Forum is directed to send the copies to the parties immediately.

We consign the record strictly in accordance with the rules.

Pronounced:

19.04.2012

Shiv Pal Bansal, Neena Rani Gupta, S.D.Sharma,

Member. Member. President.