- Regional Deputy Director and Appellate Authority,
A.P. Information & Public Relation Department,
E.No.37-10-406/59/2,
Bhagyanagar 2nd line,
Ongole-523 002. …Opposite Parties
This complaint coming up before us for hearing on 04.01.2011 in the presence of complainant and opposite parties remained absent and set exparte, upon perusing the material on record and having stood over till this day for consideration this Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao, President:-
The complainant filed this complaint U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act seeking information in respect of items 4 to 7 of his petition, Rs.2,000/- towards compensation and costs.
2. In brief narrated complaint averments are these: The complainant on 20-10-09 sought information from the 1st opposite party in respect of 8 items and paid Rs.180/- on 20-11-09 as required by the 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party furnished information in respect of items 1 to 3 and 8 only. On that the complainant filed appeal to the 2nd opposite party. The 2nd opposite party did not furnish any information within 45 days. After the expiry of three months the complainant filed this case before the Forum. The 1st opposite party refused to furnish the information regarding item No.4 of the petition contending that it related to third party, items 5 to 7 as they did not come under the purview of sec.2(f) of the Consumer Protection Act. The contention of the 1st opposite party is baseless and his action amounted to deficiency of service.
3. The 2nd opposite party was set exparte on 11-6-10. The 1st opposite party appeared in person on 11-6-10. This Forum on 19-08-10 forfeited the right of the 1st opposite party to file version and posted the matter for filing affidavit of the complainant.
4. The complainant filed affidavit on 31-08-10. This Forum adjourned the matter to 20-09-10, 08-10-10, 27-10-10, 18-11-10 and on 06-12-10 on payment of costs of Rs.100/- for filing version on behalf of 1st opposite party. As the 1st opposite party failed to deposit costs as well as filing affidavit, this Forum set him exparte on 27-12-10.
5. On perusal of the affidavit of complainant Exs.A-1 to A-6 were marked. Heard the complainant.
Now the points that arose before the Forum are,
- Whether the complainant is a consumer under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act?
- Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
- To what relief?
6. POINT No.1:- The complainant relied on a decision reported in,
Shri Prabhakar Vyankoba Aadone vs. Superintendent, Civil Court (2002 (3) CPR 160 (NC) wherein it was held “It may be noted that the concept of sovereign function has undergone changes and in a welfare state, where the activities of the government extend to several spheres, the distinction between sovereign and non-sovereign for the purpose of immunity has largely disappeared. (N. Nagendra Rao v. State of A.P. (1994) 6 SCC 205 @235, pr.25, Common cause vs. Union of India (1999) 6 SCC 667 @716, Chairman Railway Board vs. Chandrima Das and State of A.P. vs. Challa Ramakrishna Reddy (2000) 5 SCC 712 @ 726-727.
While judicial officers may be protected from being arrayed in legal proceedings for their judicial function, (e.g. See Sec.28 of the Act) they do not enjoy such immunity for the administrative functions performed by them or by their staff. For instance, the functions performed by High Court in its administrative side are amenable to judicial review in its judicial side. See R.C.Sood vs. High Court of Rajasthan vs. Ramesh Chandra Paliwal.
The grant of certified copies of orders of courts is not a sovereign function but is an administrative function since this is not a judicial function, it does not partake the character of a ‘sovereign function’.
We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that an applicant for certified copy of a judicial order, who deposits a fee for obtaining such copy is a “consumer” within the meaning of the act and the proceeding of such application and the preparation and delivery of the copy in consideration of the copying charges/fee by the concerned staff attached to the court would be a service within the meaning of the Act”.
7. Taking a clue from the above decision, I opined that the complainant is a consumer under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. Therefore this point is answered in favour of complainant.
8. POINT No.2:- Sec. 2(f) of the Consumer Protection Act defined information and it reads as follows,
“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force”.
9. The information sought by the complainant from the 1st opposite party vide Ex.A-1 dated 20-10-09 is as follows,
10. On receipt of Ex.A-1 the 1st opposite party addressed a letter to the Editor, Eenadu daily, Pothuru village, Guntur rural on 07-11-09 marking a copy to the complainant under Ex.A-2. The complainant paid Rs.180/- under Ex.A4 demanded under Ex.A-3 by the 1st opposite party.
11. The 1st opposite party sent information in respect of items 1 to 3 and 8 of Ex.A-1. The contention of the 1st opposite party regarding items 5 to 7 of Ex.A-1 is untenable in view of Sec.2(f) of Consumer Protection Act. I therefore, opined that items 5 to 7 of Ex.A-1 do come under the purview of Sec.2(f) of Consumer Protection Act.
12. Regarding item No.4, the 1st opposite party addressed a letter to the Editor, Eenadu daily under Ex.A-2. Ex.A-5 dated 23-11-09 is silent whether the 1st opposite party received information from the Editor, Eenadu daily or not. The information sought under item No.4 of Ex.A-1 do not relate to any official secrets. As the opposite parties remained exparte without filing version the contention of the complainant is deemed to have been admitted or proved.
13. Under Ex.A-3 the 1st opposite party required the complainant to remit Rs.180/- @Rs.2/- per page for furnishing the information sought under Ex.A-1. Therefore, it is not open to the opposite parties to with hold the information by the complainant. Under those circumstances, I am of the opinion that the opposite parties have committed deficiency of service. I therefore, answer this point in favour of complainant.
14. POINT No.3:- In view of my findings on points 1 and 2, in the result the complaint is allowed directing the 1st opposite party to furnish information regarding points 4 to 7 of Ex.A-1 and to pay Rs.500/- towards compensation and Rs.500/- towards costs. The 1st opposite party is directed to comply the above order within a month.
Dictated to junior stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 7th day of January, 2011.
Sd/-XXX Sd/-XXX Sd/-XXX
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
No oral evidence is adduced on either side
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For Complainant:
Ex.A-1/20-10-09 :Copy of application.
Ex.A-2/7-11-09 : Letter from DPRO, Guntur
Ex.A-3/17-11-09 :Letter from DPRO, Guntur
Ex.A-4/20-11-09 :Letter from complainant to DPRO, Guntur.
Ex.A-5/23-11-09 :Letter from DPRO, Guntur
Ex.A-6/04-12-09 :Copy of appeal filed before OP2 along
with courier receipt.
For Opposite parties: NIL
Sd/-XXX
PRESIDENT
