1.      This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 10th of August 2018 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in first appeal no. 24 of 2018 whereby the Appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 16th January 2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Una, (in short ‘the District Forum’) in consumer complaint filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

2.      Brief facts of the case are that complainant is disciple of Gaddi Baba Game Shah.  Complainant pleaded that the estate of Gaddi was succeeded by complainant on the basis of WILL dated 04.05.2010.  After sanctioning of mutation complainant became Manager of aforesaid seat. Complainant requested opposite party to remove electricity meter installed in the name of baba Pritam Singh Shah.  Complainant sought information from opposite party under RTI Act, but information was not provided to the complainant by opposite party within the stipulated period.  Complainant sought relief of payment of Rs.20,000 as damages for non-supplying of required information under RTI Act. 

3.      Heard GPA of the petitioner. It was stated by him that the opposite party Executive Engineer Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board has not provided the information under the Right to Information Act (RTI) and therefore complaint case was filed for compensation in respect of mental tension and harassment suffered by the petitioner. Both the fora below have taken this complaint to be a complaint under the RTI Act, whereas, the fact is that this complaint is under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and is for granting the compensation for not supplying the information under the RTI Act to the petitioner. Under Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, alternative remedy can be availed by a complainant and therefore the complaint is very much maintainable.

4.      I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the GPA of the petitioner and have examined the record. The following prayer has been made in the complaint filed by the petitioner:-

“7.   That the opposite party is bound to furnish the required information within the stipulated period of limitation otherwise the opposite party is liable for deficiency and negligency on their part for not providing service to the complainant, even on receipt of required fee.

8.     That due to the aforesaid act and conduct of the opposite party, the complainant has suffered irreparable loss, legal injury and mental agony.

9.     That the complainant has affixed postal order of Rs.100/- as fee of the present complaint.

It is, therefore, prayed that the opposite party be directed to pay Rs.20,000/- as damages for their deficiency in service and negligence on the part of concerned officials for not supplying the required information within stipulated period.”

5.      From the above it is quite clear that the main relief sought in the complaint is for compensation to be provided for alleged deficiency in service for not providing the information under the RTI Act within time. Clearly this is the subject matter of proceedings under the RTI Act which is an independent Act and the whole hierarchy of authorities are there to administer the provisions of the RTI Act. Consumer forum has no role in this regard. It is not that compensation cannot be granted under the RTI Act and therefore the petitioner was required to move to the appropriate authority under the RTI Act for redressal of his grievance. Both the fora below have taken the right view that the complaint was not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and the petitioner should have approached the appropriate authorities under the RTI Act itself.

6.      Moreover Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 is applicable only when the dispute is a consumer dispute and the complainant is entitled to file a complaint as per definition of complaint given in Section 2(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

7.      From the provision of Section 2(1)(c) it is clear that not supplying information under the RTI Act or supplying the information with delay cannot give rise to a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 as none of the sub- provisions of Section 2(1)(c) are attracted.

8.      From the above examination I am of the considered view that the complaint filed by the petitioner was not maintainable before a consumer forum and therefore District Forum as well as the State Commission have rightly dismissed the complaint and appeal filed by the petitioner. Accordingly I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order dated 10th of August 2018 passed by the State Commission which calls for any interference from this Commission. Consequently the revision petition No.2476 of 2018 is dismissed at the admission stage.