Uttar Pradesh

Sant Kabir Nagar

CC/7/2020

MAHESH NARAYAN UPADHYAY - Complainant(s)

Versus

MANAGER K K UPADHYAY MAHINDRA FINANCE SERVICES LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

MITHILESH KUMAR YADAV

25 Sep 2020

ORDER

Complaint NO-7/20

25-09-2020          Complainant is absent. None present on behalf of Complainant to advance the argument on the point of admissibility.

          Paused the record.

This case has been filed by the Complainant against the Opposite Party for the compensation of Rs. 107499.90 and compensation of Rs. 2 lakh for not providing information sought by Complainant from Opposite Party No. 1 under RTI Act-2005.

          The brief facts of the case is that the Complainant purchased a pick up Bolero Vehicle from Opposite Party No-2 on 26/12/2013 for Rs. 557800.00 out of which he paid Rs. 57000.00 as cash and rest amount Rs. 5 lacs was financed by Opposite Party No-1. The further case is that on 25/05/2015 Opposite Party finance company, took the Bolero jeep in his possession for non-payment of installments of  aforsaid Vehicle to the finance company. The further case is that on 25/06/2015 the Complainant paid the entire amount to the finance company after selling the Bolero and obtaining debt. The further case is that the Complainant filed a petition for obtaining information from Opposite Party No-1 under the RTI Act, 2005 on 20/07/2016. The information sought from Opposite Party No-1 has been mentioned in the Complainant’s petition in para-7 (A to C). The further case is that the Opposite Party No-1 did not furnish the required information, So, the Complainant filed this Complain Petition.

          The question arises as to whether this Commission has got jurisdiction to entertain such type of complaint Petition or not.

          In the case of Vijai Kumar V/S National Institute of open Schooling YMCA complex (RTI) sector 11-C Chandigarh first Appeal No-95 of 2015 decided on 01/05/20115, Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hariyana, Chandigarh. has observed as follows-

          The perusal of the provision of section 23 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, extracted above revels that, no Court shall entertain any suit, application or other proceeding, in respect of any order made under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and no such order shall be called, in question, otherwise than by way of an appeal under the Right to Information Act, 2005.  Section 19 (8) (B) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, also empowers the Central Information Commission, or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, to require the public authority, to compensate the Complainant, for any loss or other detriment suffered. Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, empowers the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, to impose penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees for each day, till the information is furnished, but the total amount of such penalty, shall not exceed twenty Five Thousand rupees. In the instant case, the Complainant, in the complaint, claimed one of the directions to the Opposite Parties, to pay compensation. It may be stated here, that such        compensation/penalty could be awarded, under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, and, not by way of filing a Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In Sanjay Kumar Mishra V/S PIO, State Information Commission (sic) and another, I (2015) CPJ 335, a three member bench of the National Commission also ruled that the Jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora to intervene in the matters arising out of the provision of the RTI Act was barred by necessary implication as also under the provisions of the said Act. So, it is held that the jurisdiction of the District Forum was barred, under the provisions of Section 23 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

          From the above observation of the Hon’ble Commission, it is cear that sufficient remedy has been provided in the Right to Information Act, 2005 in connection with Complainant’s  grievance and this Commission has no jurisdiction to complaint as filed by Complainant.

          In the circumstances  the complaint is dismissed at the admission stage itself.