Punjab

StateCommission

FA/12/662

Executive Officer Municipal Council, Tapa - Complainant(s)

Versus

Jagsir Singh - Opp.Party(s)

Rajiv Joshi

04 Mar 2015

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                                               PUNJAB

          SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

                                     

                             First Appeal No.662 of 2012

 

                                                          Date of Institution: 24.05.2012  

                                                          Date of Decision :  04.03.2015

 

Executive Officer Municipal Council Tapa-cum-Public Instruction Officer, Municipal Council Tapa.

 

                                                          …..Appellant/Opposite Party

                                      Versus

 

Jagsir Singh s/o Joginder Singh r/o H.No.205, Gugga Mari Basti, Tapa Mandi, District Barnala.

 

                                                          ….Respondent/Complainant

         

First Appeal against order dated 02.04.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Barnala

Quorum:-

 

          Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

          Shri Harcharan Singh Guram, Member.    

Present:-

 

          For the appellant              :         Sh.Rajiv Joshi, Advocate

          For the respondent :         Ex-parte

 

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

                            

J. S. KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

                  

           The appellant (the OP in the complaint) has directed this appeal against the respondent in this appeal (the complainant in the complaint), challenging the order dated 02.04.2012 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Barnala, accepting the complaint of the complainant and directing the OP to provide the requisite information within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and to pay the consolidated amount of Rs.1000/- as compensation.  The instant appeal has been preferred against the same by the OP now appellant.

2.      The complainant Jagir Singh has filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OP before the District Forum on the averments that complainant applied for requisite information under Right to Information Act (hereinafter referred to as "RTI") to the OP by sending the postal order of Rs.10/- bearing no. 03F-788682 on 30.12.2011 through registered post, which was received by OP. Requisite information has not been supplied to complainant under RTI Act by the OP. That in the month of January, the complainant went to the office of OP and requested it to supply the requisite information, but of no use. The complainant has filed the complaint against OP directing it to supply the requisite information under the RTI Act.

3.      Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant. It was averred in legal objection by the OP that the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora is excluded under Section 23 of the RTI Act 2005. That the complaint is not maintainable and complainant has not locus standi to file the present complaint. That the application received from the complainant was duly forwarded to Sectional Officer Inderjit Singh for necessary compliance, but information cannot be supplied. The OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      The complainant tendered in evidence affidavit only in support of his contentions. As against it, OP did not tender in evidence any document. On conclusion of evidence and arguments,  the District Forum, Barnala accepted the complaint of the complainant and directed the OP to supply the requisite information within the period of one month from the date of copy of order to the complainant, besides payment of Rs.1000/- as composite amount. Dissatisfied with the order dated 02.04.2012 District Forum, Barnala, the OP now appellant has preferred this appeal against the same.

5.      We have heard learned counsel for the appellant/OP as none has appeared on behalf of respondent in this appeal, being the complainant. We have examined the record of the case. The contention raised by the counsel for the OP now appellant is that the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora is barred under the RTI Act 2005 and this information cannot be provided. Reference was made to law laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission in case titled as Sanjay Kumar Mishra & Company Vs. Public Information Officer (PIO) & Ors  reported in 2015(1) CPR 171 (NC) Page 171-172, wherein the National Commission has held that the "person seeking information under provisions of RTI Act cannot be said to be a consumer vis-à-vis Public Authority concerned or CPIO/PIO nominated by the Act.  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 RTI Act as well." The complaint is accordingly held to be not maintainable, as the informant is not held to be a consumer, while relying upon law laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission in  Sanjay Kumar Mishra's Case (supra).  We hold that the District Forum has committed an illegality in accepting the complaint of the complainant by holding the complainant to be a consumer. The order of the District Forum cannot be sustained in this appeal on the strength of law laid down in the above authority.

6.      As a result of our above discussion, by setting the aside the order of the District Forum Barnala dated 2.04.2012, the appeal of the appellant is hereby accepted and complaint filed by the complainant now respondent in this appeal is ordered to be dismissed.

7.      The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.500/- at the time of filing the appeal. This amount with interest, if any, accrued thereon be refunded by the registry to the appellant by way of crossed cheque/demand draft after  45 days from receipt of copy of this order.

8.      Arguments in this appeal were heard on 02.03.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.

9.      The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

                                                                          (J. S. KLAR)

                                                             PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                       

                                                            (HARCHARAN SINGH GURAM)

                                                                          MEMBER

 

March, 4   2015.                                                             

(ravi)