Punjab

StateCommission

A/11/1676

Union of India - Complainant(s)

Versus

Gurdev Singh Azad - Opp.Party(s)

Karamjit Verma

24 Feb 2015

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION, PUNJAB, SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

 

First Appeal No.1676 of 2011

                                                Date of Institution:  17.11.2011.

                                                Date of Decision:           24.02.2015.

 

1.      Union of India through Secretary to the Ministry of Railways,   Rail Bhawan, New Delhi.
2.      FA & CA, Northern Railway, H.O Office, New Delhi.
3.      Senior Divisional Finance Manager, Northern Raiwaul, DRM   Office, Ferozepur.

                                                     …..Appellants/opposite parties

Versus

 

Gurdev Singh Azad, aged 70 years son of Phuman Singh, resident of Mandir Street, Azad Nagar, Ferozepur City.

                                                     ….Respondent/complainant

 

Appeal against order dated 10.10.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur.

Quorum:-

     Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

             Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member.

Present:-

 

     For the appellants       :     Sh. Karamjit Verma, Advocate

For the respondent      :     Sh. Surinder Garg, Advocate.

     . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

J. S. KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

                   The appellants (the opposite parties in the complaint) have directed this appeal against the respondent herein (the complainant in the complaint), assailing the order dated 10.10.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Ferozepur (in short, “the District Forum”), accepting the complaint of the complainant and directing the OPs to pay the compensation of Rs.5000/- and Rs.1000/- as costs of litigation to the complainant. The instant appeal has been preferred against the same by the OPs now appellants.

2.           The complainant Gurdev Singh Azad has filed the complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short "Act") against the OPs on the averments that he retired as Assistant Divisional Finance Manager Ferozepur on 28.02.2001 on superannuation. That the new fixation of pay and family pension is mandatory for the Divisional Finance Manger, N.R. Ferozepur w.e.f. 01.01.2006 in terms of sixth pay commission report. That he applied through PIO-cum-DNM N. Railway Ferozepur moving an application on 14.09.2009, (sr.no.1) under the Right to information Act by paying Rs.10/- in the shape of postal order as fee for the purpose of obtaining the information. That he is the consumer of the OPs. That no reply has been sent by the OPs, despite reply received from
   Sr. DFM Ferozepur, vide letter no.2007/Admn/RTI Ferozepur dated 07.10.2009 (sr.no.2), intimating that original service statement and other documents of complainant were desired by Head Office.  That the Ministry of Public Grievance and Pension circular dated 21.12.2009 appeared in the press on 16.01.201- in 'The Tribune' in this regard with regard to fixation of pay and family pension. That no reply has been given to him under the Right to information Act by the OPs. The complainant received letter from Sr. Divisional Finance Manager, N.Rly. Ferozepur, vide letter no.2010/Admn/RTI/FZR dated 07.02.2011 (sr.no.4) with regard to his complaint under Right to information Act within time. That no reply has been given to him by the OPs thereto and it is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The complainant has accordingly prayed for direction to OPs to give complete information immediately under the Right to information Act to him and to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.4500/- as costs of litigation.
3.           Upon notice, the OPs appeared and filed written reply, raising preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable in as such as the complainant is not consumer of the OPs. The OPs have not received service statements and service record of the complainant, which were taken by the Head Office. The complainant was charge-sheeted in a criminal case by CBI and convicted by the CBI Court Patiala and complainant was informed by the office of
   Sr. Divisional Finance Manager, vide their letter no.2007/Admn /A/cs/RTI/FZR in reference to letter no.117-S/RTI/FZR/279 dated 15.09.2009 to the effect that on receiving the original file, the revised pension payment order would be issued with the approval of Headquarters Office. On merits, the complaint was contested by the OPs by pleading that complainant has already been drawing enhanced pension, as per sixth pay commission report, which is evident from the bank statement issued by the Bank of India Zila Parishad Complex Ferozepur City, since 2006, hence the complaint has become infructuous. That on the receipt of the original service record, revised pension payment order would be issued. That complainant may approach the office of FA & CAO/Admn, N.Rly., New Delhi for Redressal of his grievances, as the entire record, is in the Head Office at Head Quarter, Delhi. The OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.           The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit
   Ex.C-1 along with documents Ex.C-2 to C-11 and closed the evidence. As against it, the OPs tendered in evidence acknowledgement of service record of complainant Ex.R-1 along with documents Ex.R-2 to R12 and thereafter closed the evidence. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum Ferozepur accepted the complaint of the complainant, by virtue of order dated 10.10.2011 and awarded compensation of Rs.5000/- and Rs.1000/- as litigation expenses in favour of complainant and against the OPs. Dissatisfied with the order dated 10.10.2011 of District Forum Ferozepur, the OPs now appellants have preferred this appeal against the same.
5.           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also examined the record of the case. The sole contention raised by the counsel for the appellants is that complainant is not the consumer of the appellants and hence, the consumer complaint is not maintainable. On the other hand, the counsel for the complainant now respondent in this appeal argued to the contrary before us. The grievance of the complainant is that the OPs have not given the complete information to him, which he applied under Right to Information Act and he also prayed for compensation for withholding the information by the OPs. The District Forum relied upon law laid down in Revision Petition No.1975 of 2005, titled as Dr. S.P. Thirumala Rao versus Municipal Commissioner, Mysore City Municipal Corporation, reaching the conclusion that Consumer Fora is competent to entertain this type of complaint. Our own State Commission has held in first appeal no.765 of 2013, instituted on 26.11.2014 and decided on 26.11.2014 titled as Public Information Office/Executive Officer, Municipal Committee, Fatehgarh Sahib  Versus  Munish Modi, Advocate that person seeking information under Right to Information Act, does not fall within the definition of consumer, as defined under the Act. His remedy is to file an appeal under Section 19 of the RTI Act. The matter has been examined by the National Commission and the National Commission has recently held in Sanjay Kumar Mishra & Ors.  Versus  Public Information Officer reported in 2015(1) CPR-471 that Sections 8 and 20 of Right to Information Act 2005- non-furnishing of information under Right to Information Act- person seeking information under Right to Information Act is required not only to pay fee prescribed in terms of Section 6, but also cost of providing information. The National Commission has held in this authority that the person seeking information under provisions of RTI Act cannot be said to be a consumer vis-à-vis Public Authority concerned. Jurisdiction of Consumer Fora to intervene in the matters arising out of provisions of RTI Act is barred by necessary implication, as also under provisions of Section 23 of the Act. The National Commission has held that no complaint by a person, alleging deficiency in services rendered by PIO, is maintainable before Consumer Fora. The National Commission examined the subject matter in detail and held that person seeking the information under RTI Act cannot be said to be the consumer vis-à-vis nominated under the Act. The jurisdiction of Consumer Fora is held to be barred by necessary implication. While relying upon law recently laid down by the National Commission on this point (Supra), we hold that complainant seeking information under RTI Act is not the consumer of the OPs. The District Forum has not examined this point in proper perspective and erred in holding the complainant to be the consumer. The order of the District Forum is unsustainable in the eye of law and merits reversal in this appeal.
6.           In the light of our above discussion, we hereby accept the appeal of the appellants and by setting aside the order of District Forum Ferozepur dated 10.10.2011, we hereby dismiss the complaint of the complainant now respondent in this appeal by leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
7.           The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.3000/- with this Commission at the time of filing this appeal. This amount with interest, which accrued thereupon, be remitted by the registry to appellant no.3 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days. 
8.           Arguments in this appeal were heard on 23.02.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.        The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

                                                                          (J. S. KLAR)

                                                         PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                       

                                                                   (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA)

                                                                              MEMBER

 

February 24, 2015.                                                             

(MM)