DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALWAL
Consumer Complaint No .65 of 2014
Date of Institution: 2.6.2014
Date of Decision : 24.2.2015
Satvir son of Sh. Ramjas, resident of village Aamru, Tehsil and District Palwal.
.. Complainant Versus
- Public Information Officer-cum-Block Development & Panchayat Officer, Prithala, Tehsil and District Palwal.
- Deputy Commissioner-cum-Appellate Authority, Palwal.
- SPIO-cum-Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Aamru, Block Prithala, District Palwal.
- APIO-cum-Secretary Gram Panchayat Aamru, Block Prithala, District Palwal. ..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
BEFORE: JAGBIR SINGH: PRESIDENT
KHUSHWINDER KAUR: MEMBER
R.S.DHARIWAL: MEMBER
PRESENT: Sh. Pardeep Kumar, Advocate for complainant.
Opposite parties no. 1 and 2 exparte.
Sh.J.S. Rawat, Advocate for opposite parties no. 3 & 4
ORDER:
Brief facts of the present case are that the complainant, vide application no. 9.12.2013 paid an amount of Rs.50/- through postal order no. 78G 859336 for seeking information under Right To Information Act, 2005 from opposite party no. 1. The following information was sought from opposite party no.1:-
(a) Supply the copy of attested signature of Sarpanch village Aamru.
(B) How much amount was spent on development works
-2-
streetwise in Village Aamru from July 2010 to 1.12.2013.
(C) Whether the work of streets was carried out by Government licensed contractor? If yes supply the name of the contractor and his license no.
(D) How many streets were constructed in total? Supply the details streetwise and the length of the streets.
(E) What material was used for construction of the streets? Please supply the information about length, breadth and thickness of every street constructed from July 2010 to 1.12.2013. Specify the traffic load on these streets and passageways.
(F) Whether traffic load was taken into consideration while constructing these streets? If yes what was the basis of measurement? Please supply details.
(G) Please inform the total amount of expenditure incurred on all the streets and passageways constructed during the period July 2010 to 1.12.2013. Also supply copy of MB.
(H) How much amount was spent on the construction of drains from July 2010 to 1.12.2013? Specify length, breadth and depth of the drains.
(I) Please supply MB of every work carried out by Gram Panchayat, Aamru from July 2010 to 1.12.2013.
(J) How much land is owned by Gram Panchayat and how much land is given on lease from July 2010 to 1.12.2013? How much & how many times land was given on lease and how much amount was received in lieu of lease by Gram Panchayat and where this amount was spent? Please supply the details and how much amount is lying balance.
Opposite party no. 1 was bound to supply the information to the complaint within 30 days from the date of receipt of the application but the complainant was not supplied the information till filing of the complaint. The complainant filed First Appeal before opposite party no. 2 on 7.2.2014 alongwith a fee of Rs 50/- vide postal order no. 78G 863099 with a request to get the said information supplied to the complainant and to impose penalty on opposite party no. 1 for not
-3-
supplying the information upon which opposite party no. 2 vide letter no. 5719/P dated 18.2.2014 informed opposite party no. 1 about Government order issued vide no. ASI 19461-19661 dated 16.6.2008 according to which APIO of Village Panchayat area was concerned Gram Sachiv, SPIO was concerned Sarpanch and First Appellate Authority was concerned Executive Officer, Panchayat Samiti-cum Block Development and Panchayat Officer as well as directed opposite party no. 1 to dispose of the said appeal and supply the sought information directly to the complainant under intimation to opposite party no. 2. The complainant visited the office of opposite party no. 1 several times and requested to supply the sought information but opposite party no. 1 used to send the complainant to opposite parties no. 3 and 4 to get the sought information but opposite parties no. 3 and 4 used to send the complainant back to opposite party no. 1. Thus opposite parties no. 1, 3 and 4 misguided the complainant and rendered deficient services due to which the complainant suffered mental agony, financial as well as time loss. The complainant prayed for directing opposite parties to supply the attested correct information sought vide application dated 9.12.2013 and to refund the amount of Rs.100/- deposited for seeking information as well as to pay Rs.90,000/- on account of deficiency in service, mental agony, financial besides time loss, jointly and severally, alongwith Rs. 9500/- on account of legal expenses to the complainant.
Notice of this complaint was issued to opposite parties. Notices sent to opposite parties no. 1 and 2 through registered post on 2.6.2014 were not received back either served or unserved. Hence were deemed served but none appeared on behalf of opposite parties no. 1 and 2, so opposite parties no. 1 and 2 were proceeded against exparte on 15.7.2014. Opposite parties no. 3 and 4 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement. In written statement opposite parties no. 3 and 4 refuted claim of the complainant by raising preliminary objections such as the Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint. The allegations made in the complaint were false and baseless as the sought information had been supplied to the
-4-
complainant. The complainant had filed the complaint with ulterior motive to harass opposite parties and to hinder the development work as the complainant was not satisfied with the development work of opposite party no. 1.
Opposite parties no. 3 and 4 in parawise reply denied the allegations and pleaded that the complainant had not suffered any mental tension or financial loss and was not a consumer of opposite parties no. 3 and 4. Opposite parties no. 3 and 4 prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
In support of his complaint, the complainant placed on record his Affidavit Ex. CW1/A wherein he affirmed and declared the same facts which are mentioned in his complaint and relied upon the following documents:-
Ex.C-1 Photocopy of application dated 9.12.2013 for seeking information.
Ex.C-2 Original and photocopy of counterfoil of IPO no. 78G 859336.
Ex.C-3 Photocopy of receipts.
Ex.C-4 Photocopy of receipts.
Ex.C-5 Envelope.
Ex.C-6 Copy of First Appeal dated 7.2.2014.
Ex.C-7 Counterfoil of IPO no. 78G 863099.
Ex.C-7 Photocopy of letter no. 5719 from opposite party no. 2 to opposite party no.1.
An application to call opposite party no. 3 in person for giving her original signature for comparison with the signature on reply given under RTI to the complainant for investigation purpose was moved by the complainant on 27.8.2014 and after consideration the same was dismissed on 11.11.2014.
On the other hand, Smt. Bhagti Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Aamru, Palwal of opposite parties no. 3 and 4 placed on record her affidavit Ex.RW1/A and affidavit of Sh. Praveen Kumar, Gram Sachiv Gram Panchayat, Aamru, Ex.RW2/A wherein they affirmed and declared
-5-
the same facts which are mentioned in the reply of opposite parties no. 3 and 4
The Forum heard Sh. Pardeep Kumar, counsel for the complainant and Sh. J.S. Rawat, counsel for opposite parties no. 3 and 4 at length and also have gone through the case file carefully as well as written arguments.
The Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties no. 3 and 4 has raised a contention that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and maintain the present complaint as the complainant is not consumer of opposite parties but this plea of counsel for opposite parties is devoid of force. Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act provides additional remedy in addition to the remedies provided under other Acts and it is not in derogation of any provisions of any law. The Consumer Fora has, therefore, jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in respect of deficiency of service.
The Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties no. 3 and 4 pleaded that the complainant was not a consumer of opposite parties. The complainant had paid a fee of Rs. 50/- for seeking the said information so it would fall within the scope and ambit of Section 2(i) (o) of CP Act, which provides that service means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes purveying of news or supplying of other information. The complainant had availed of the services under the said Act for consideration by paying fee and had sought information under the said Act. The complainant is, thus, a consumer vis-a-vis information sought on payment under the said Act. This view of the matter is fortified with the judgment of Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in case of Dr. S.P.Thirumala Rao Versus Municipal Commissioner in Revision Petition No. 1975 of 2005.
The Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that the sought information was not supplied to the complainant till filing of the present complaint. The information was supplied to the complainant vide postal receipt dated 12.7.2014 affixed on envelope Ex. C-5.
-6-
The application of seeking information was received in the office of opposite party no. 1 on 9.12.2013 Ex C-1. Opposite party no. 1 ought to have transferred the said application to the concerned SPIO within five days as per the provision of section 6 (3) of RTI Act, 2005 but there is nothing on record to show that the application was transferred within stipulated period of five days.
The competent authority was required to give information within 30 days of the application in terms of Section 5 of the said Act. However, the said information was not furnished within stipulated period so the complainant had approached this Forum claiming compensation/damages for deficiency of service. Even though, further remedy may be available to the complainant in case information is not supplied in terms of Section 5 of the Act within 30 days, yet there is no bar to approach the District Forum for deficiency of service. Also, it is well settled principle that "it is wish of the litigant to opt the desired remedy when there is one or more remedy available under law.
Opposite party no 2 had disposed off the first appeal dated 7.2.14 filed by the complainant on 18.2.14 so there was no deficiency on the part of opposite party no. 2. The role of Assistant State Public Information Officer is to receive the requests for information or appeals and forward the same to State Public Information Officer or senior officer or State Information Commission, as the case may be as provided under section 5(2) of RTI Act, 2005 but there is nothing on record to show that he had received the request from the complainant. Hence there was no deficiency on the part of opposite party no. 4.
Admittedly, in the present case the information sought by complainant was not furnished to him within 30 days which amounts to deficiency in service. Hence complaint is partly allowed. Opposite
-7-
parties number 1 & 3 are directed to pay Rs.10,000/-, jointly & severally, as compensation towards mental agony, harassment alongwith Rs. 2200/- as litigation expenses to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which they shall be further burdened with an amount of Rs. 2000/- alongwith the award amount. Copy of this order be given to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to record room. This order of Forum is running into 7 pages and each page of this order have been signed by this Forum.
Announced on:24.2.2015 (JAGBIR SINGH)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Palwal
(KHUSHWINDER KAUR)
Member District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Palwal.
(R.S.DHARIWAL)
Member District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Palwal
