Tamil Nadu

Perambalur

CC/11/54

M.G.Balasubramaniyan, - Complainant(s)

Versus

M.Geevaraj,District Supply officer, - Opp.Party(s)

Party in Person

30 Jan 2015

ORDER

                                            Date of filing: 16-11-2011

                                                                                                                                Date of Order: 30-1-2015

  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,PERAMBALUR.

                                          PRESENT:Thiru.P.G.RAJAGOPAL, B.A.B.L.,                         PRESIDENT                                                                                                              Thiru.S.BALASUBRAMANIYAM, M.A.M.L.,           MEMBER                        

CC/54/2011

FRIDAY, THE 30^th DAY OF JANUARY, 2015.

M. Balasubramaniyan,

Public Secretary,

Tamil Nadu

4/284 Malaveethi,

Thirumanur, 621715                                                                            Complainant

                                                          Versus

Thiru M.Jeevaraj M.A.,

Civil Supply Public officer,

District Collector Office,

Thirumanur-621715.

Ariyalur-621704.                                                                     Opposite Party

           

            This complaint having come for final hearing before us on Friday the 30^th Day of January, 2015 in the presence of Thiru. M.G.Balasubramaniyan,  the complainant and, the  opposite party,Thiru.M.Jeevaraj, this Forum passed the following

                                                ORDER

             As regards the maintainability of the Complaint the complainant has contended stating that he has paid Rs.36/-(Thirty six) towards service charges for getting information apart from the sum of Rs.10/-paid on the application and hence he is the ‘consumer’ as defined under section (2)(d) 0f the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and as the opposite party has failed to furnish the information, he has committed deficiency service and therefore the complaint is maintainable before this Forum.

          The Complainant has submitted the order of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi, on Revision petition No.1975/2005 in

Dr.S.P.Thirumala Rao                                                                      Petitioner

                                                          Versus

Municipal commissioner,

Mysore City Municipal Corporation                                                                                                                                                                                       Respondent

and another judgment dated 5.11.1993, reported in 1994 SCC(1)243

Lucknow Development authority                                                     Petitioner

                                                          Versus

M,K,Guptha                                                                                                         Respondent

         

          But the said decisions have been overruled by the decisions of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission  New Delhi, reported in 1(2014) CPJ 444 in

S.Durairaj,                                                                                         Petitioner

                                                          Versus

Divisional personal Officer,                                                              Respondent

Southern Railway,Madurai,

and another decision of the Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2013(4) CPR 559in

Shri KaliRam                                                                                    Petitioner

                                              Versus

State Public Information Officer,                                                     

Cum Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner,                                                                                                                                                                  Respondent

 

in which the Hon’ble National Commission has held that the Petitioner cannot be claimed to be Consumer under the Consumer Protection Act and there is remedy available for him to approach the appellate authority under section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

 

          Therefore the Complaint is dismissed as unsustainable before this Form.

 

       Sd                                                                                           Sd

MEMBER                                                                               PRESIDENT