DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANDHAMAL, PHULBANI
C.C NO.50 OF 2016
Present: Sri Rabindranath Mishra - President.
Miss Sudhiralaxmi Pattanaik - Member.
Sri Purna Chandra Tripathy - Member.
Bamadev Kanhar
S/O: Late Sadala Kanhar
At/PO/PS:Balurmaha,G. Udayagiri Dist: kandhamal. ………………………….. Complainant.
Versus .
- District Welfare Officer, Kandhamal, Phulbani
At/PO/Ps: Collectriate , Town Phulbani Dist : Kandhamal
2. Head Master Lingagada High School.
At/PO: Lingagada,PS: G. Udayagiri Dist : Kandhamal…………………………….. OPP. Parties.
For the Complainant: Self.
For the OPP. Parties: Self.
Date of Order: 28-02-2017
O R D E R
The case of the Complainant in brief is that he submitted an application under R.T.I Act 2005 before the O.P No.1 on 04-10-2016 to obtain certain documents. The O.P No.1 sent the same to the O.P No.2 as the information was not available at his office and intimated him by registered post. The O.P No.2 received the said application from O.P No.1 and asked him to deposit Rs. 40/- towards charges for supply of the information. So, he deposited Rs. 40/- through postal money order on 25-11-2016 in favor of O.P No.2. On 13-12-2016 the O.P No.2 intimated him that the required information is not available at his office and advised him to apply before the appointment authority. As the act and conduct of the O.Ps reveals that there is gross deficiency in service on their part,he has filed this complaint for a direction to the O.ps to supply the information as per his application and claimed compensation of Rs. 5,000/- along with Rs. 2,000/- for cost of litigation from the O.Ps.
The case of the O.Ps as per their version is that the O.P No.2 is not working under O.P No.1. The O.P No.2 never asked to the Complainant to deposit Rs. 40/- for supply of
-2-
Information but he deposited the same through money order. The required documents are not available in the office of O.P No.2. So, he advised him to apply the D.E.O, Kandhamal. The Complainant was not attending the office of the O.P to receive his amount. There was no fund to refund the said money to the Complainant through money order. Hence, the O.Ps are not committed any deficiency in service on their part.
We have heard both parties. We have also gone through the complaint petition, the version and the documents filed by the parties in support of their case. It is seen from the documents that there are two High schools at Lingagada. One is Govt High school, lingagada which is not coming under the D.W.O, the O.P No.1. The other is Govt Girls High school Lingagada which is coming under O.P No.1. But the said school is not added as a party by the Complainant. The required information of the Complainant is not available in the office of O.P No.2. The O.P No.1, the District Welfare officer of Phulbani is wrongly added as a party in this case by the Complainant. The D.E.O, Kandhamal is also not a party in this case.
In the above circumstances there is no evidence of deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps and the O. P No.1 has no role absolutely in this case .Hence, the complaint filed by the Complainant is dismissed on contest being devoid of merit.
The C.C is disposed of. Supply free copies of this order to both parties at an early date.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
