Delhi

StateCommission

A/12/26

VIJAY GOEL - Complainant(s)

Versus

INCOME TAX OFFICE - Opp.Party(s)

29 Jun 2015

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

                                                   Date of Decision: 29.06.2015

First Appeal No. 26/2012

(Arising out of the order dated 13.09.2011 passed in complaint case No. 23/2010 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (Central), Maharana Partap Bus Terminal, Mezzanine Floor, Kashmere Gate, Delhi.

In the matter of:

Sh. Vijay Goel,

C/o Dipin Bhel,

C-6/239,

Yamuna Nagar,

Delhi-11005                                                                    Appellant

 

Versus

 

1.      PIO/ITO

          Ward 35(1),

          H-Block, Vikas Bhawan,

          I.P. Estate, ITO,

          Delhi-110002

 

2.      Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax

          Range 35,

          D-Block,

          Vikas Bhawan,

          I.P. Estate,

          New Delhi-110002                                                 Respondent(s)

                                                                  

          CORAM

 

SH N P KAUSHIK                               -                      Member (Judicial)

SH. S.C. JAIN                                    -                      Member

 

1.         Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

2.         To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes

 

S C JAIN – MEMBER

 

JUDGEMENT

 

                The Appellant had filed this appeal against the order dated 13/9/2011 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (Central), Kashmere Gate, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 23/2010 titled as Vijay Goel Vs. PIO/ITO & Ors. 

The brief of facts the case are that the Complainant has filed application under provisions of Right to Information Act 2005 vide reference No. VG/IT/1102 dated 17/4/2009 through speed post alongwith Indian Postal Order of Rs. 10/- addressed to Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax i.e. OP No.2 for seeking information which was divided into 15 points. The OP-2 provided the reply vide letter dated 29/4/2009 and treated the RTI application as the first appeal by mistake instead of first RTI application as the word appeal was mentioned in the RTI application.

On not getting proper reply to his 15 different points, the Complainant/Appellant filed appeal before the Central Information Commission, which was decided on 31/12/2009. The CIC held that Appellant’s request was to be taken as fresh RTI application and it should have been responded according and remanded the matter back to Addl. Commissioner, Income Tax with the directions to provide para wise information to the Appellant under the provisions of law within 4 weeks time, but, appellant not satisfied with the orders of the Central Information Commission, the Appellant/Respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum against the Respondent/OPs for providing deficient service.

On perusing the records, correspondence between the parties and submissions made by the parties the District Forum concurred with the order of the Central Information Commission directing the Addl. Commissioner, Income Tax to give information within a period of 4 weeks and held that there was no occasion for the Complainant to urge that the OPs caused any deficiency in service and further held that it appears that the application dated 17/4/2009 was treated as first appeal by mistake as it was addressed to Additional Commissioner, Income Tax who happen to be Appellate Authority. The mistake of treating the application as appeal was on account of filing of the application before the Appellate Authority and further observed that it is correct that the Appellate Authority could have treated the appeal as an application under RTI Act but due to confusion of filing of the application before the Appellate Authority, the Appellate Authority treated the same as appeal and consequently District Forum found that the OP did not cause deficiency in service intentionally but that happened because of filing of the application before Appellate Authority under the RTI Act. District Forum further also observed that the above fact is duly supported by the fact that CCI only directed the Additional Commissioner to provide the information within 4 weeks and did not take any other action under provision of RTI Act. District Forum further observed that CCI also did not find any intention or omission on the part of Addl. Commissioner in treating the application as first appeal and opined that it is not a case of deficiency in service and rejected the complaint being without merit.

        Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum in dismissing the complaint the Appellant/Complainant came in appeal before this Commission. Main ground in appeal taken by the Appellant is that the District Forum has heard in dismissing the complaint and granted prayer as paid for the complaint without giving a reasoned order for rejecting the said prayer which was reasonably and the Appellant illegality deserves to them awarded with the compensation sought vide his prayer and further the Appellant has taken the ground that Ld. District Forum filed to appreciate during the entire proceedings before District Forum the contact of the Respondent/OPs was not good as instead of coming with some proposal for settlement of their admitted mistakes them had tried their basis to deal the proceedings by taking superficial technical objection with the parties of only delaying justice and to harass the Appellant.  Apart from other grounds the other main ground raised in the appeal by the Appellant is that the Appellant is very much cover under definition of consumer and the PIO is automatically deemed to be a “service provider”, once a proper fees is paid and District Forum to be very well have awarded the compensation for providing deficient services by the OPs/Respondent.

        Notice of the appeal was sent to the Respondents who appeared and contested their case and filing reply to the appeal.  The main contention of the Respondents is that the Complainant/Appellant does not clarifies to be a consumer and District Forum has heard in  even admitting the complaint without any jurisdiction as Right to Information Act, 2005 in observer is a comprehensive act and in case of not providing the information asked for there is procedure provided in the act itself and no other court has powers to entertain the complaint filed under RTI Act,  2005 though District Forum has dismissed the complaint of the Complainant/Appellant for not finding any deficiency on their part.

        Now the main question to be decided in this appeal is whether the Consumer Foras constitute under Consumer Protection Act 1986 without the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filing against the authorities provided under Right to Information Act, 2005 or not.  After the order passed by the Hon’ble National Commission in RP No. 125/2010 titled as S.N. Subramanya Vs. Bruhat Banglore Mahanagar Palika the situation has became very clear that Applicant under the RTI Act does not clarifies to be a consumer to enable them to file complaint under the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  Hon’ble National Commission has in the order (supra) had held “The RTI Act is a complete code in itself and provides for an elaborate mechanism of appeal if an applicant under the Act is denied the information to which he is rightfully entitled under the provisions of the Act.  The proper course for the petitioner was thus to approach the prescribed Appellate Authority against the alleged action of the respondent Mahanagar Palika.” With these observations the Hon’ble National Commission dismissed the Revision Petition filed by the Applicant under the RTI Act.  Similar view was taken by Hon’ble National Commission in the case of T. Pundalika Vs. Revenue Department (Service Division), Government of Karnataka decided on 21/3/2011. 

        We may mention here that the RTI Act is a code in itself. It provides for remedies available under this Act to a person who has been denied any information.  Since, petitioner has specific remedy available to him under the RTI Act and which he has already availed, the present consumer complaint does not lie under the Act and we are of the considered opinion that the District Forum has rightly held that there is no deficiency on the part of OPs/Respondent otherwise also Appellant/Complainant does not have any right to file complaint against the authorities provided under the RTI Act in the Consumer Foras.  Accordingly there is no illegality in the order passed by the District Forum and District Forum had rightly dismissed the complaint of the Appellant/Complainant being without merit.

        We also dismissed the appeal having no merit.

        Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules and thereafter file be sent to Record Room.

 

(N P KAUSHIK)

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

 

 

(S.C.  JAIN)

MEMBER

 

(m)