OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANGUL
PRESENT:- SRI DURGA CHARAN MISHRA.
PRESIDENT
A N D
Smt.Sunanda Mallick &Sri K.K.Mohanty,
MEMBER .
Consumer Complaint No. 106 of 2014
Date of Filling : - 28.11.2014.
Date of Order :- 25 .07.2017.
Chittaranjan Sahu,S/O.Bishnu Sahu,
At.Hemsurpada,P.O/ Dist.Angul.Pin.759122.
_________________________Complainant.
Vrs.
Manoranjan Das.S/O.Biswanath Das,
At present working as Asst. Executive Engineer-
Cum- Public Information Officer, Office of the Assistant
Executive Engineer, P.H Sub-Division (Urban),Angul,
_________________________ Opp. parties.
For the complainant :- Sri R.K.Maharana& associates(Advs.).
For the opp.party :- Govt. Pleader.
: J U D G E M E N T :
Sri D. C. Mishra, President.
The complainant has filed this C.C.Case with prayer to direct the opp.party to:-
- Calculate the required fees properly as prescribed under Right to Information Act, 2005 and Right to Information Rules 2005 in respect of information sought for by him.
- Discontinue the unfair and restrictive trade practice of whimsical assessment and information to deposit huge amount of fees without any basis and reasons.
- Pay compensation to the complainant towards deficiency in service caused by the opp.party by making whimsical and illegal assessment, mental agony and harassment and cost of litigation.
2. The complainant’s case runs thus:-
That the complainant being a social activist wanted information from the opp.party on 25.9.14 by depositing required fee of Rs. 10.00 under head of account “ 0070- other administrative services-60-other services-118-receipt under Right to Information Act-2005” vide challan No. 574 dt. 12.09.2014 regarding allotment of funds received by Angul Municipality from Plan and Non-Plan deposit work and mis-sources for the financial years 2010-2011 to 2014 along with other information as per the list attached with his application. After about 25 days of getting the application, the opp.party sent letter No. 2428 dt. 20.10.2014 to the complainant stating to deposit Rs. 20,000.00 only towards the charges. It is alleged that though the opp.party was bound to report about required fees immediately but intentionally he took 25 days to report about the required fee with intent to delay the matter. After getting that letter the complainant was surprised and shocked as because without any basis and reasons such a huge amount has been demanded intentionally to avoid to give the report. However, in response to the above letter of the opp.parties, the complainant again sent letter on 28.10.2014 requesting the opp.party to assess the fees properly as per the Act but without caring for the legal provisions the opp.party again sent a letter No. 2547 dt. 7.11.2014, reaffirming the earlier stand. It is specifically alleged that as per RTI Rules-2005, the assessment should have been made by the opp.party as per required law but instead of doing that he has demanded Rs. 20,000.00 whimsically with intention to avoid to supply the information which is nothing but unfair and restrictive trade practice, deficit in supply of service, harassment and mental agony etc. Therefore, the complainant has filed this case, seeking reliefs as already stated above in para-1 of the judgement.
3. Though the govt pleader appeared for the opp.party but no written statement was filed for a long period, for which argument was heard from the complainant side only.
After the case was posted for judgement, para-wise comment has been filed by the opp.party which is no way helpful in this case.
4. As per pleadings of the complainant the following points arise for consideration :-
:I S S U E S:
- Whether the case is maintainable under C.P.Act when there is appeal provisions in the RTI Act, 2005?
- Whether there is consumer and service provider relationship between the complaint and opp.party ?
- Whether the opp.party has caused deficit in service, harassment and mental agony to the complainant and has resorted to unfair trade practice?
- To what reliefs the complainant is entitled to?
Issue No.(i):- Section-3 of the C.P.Act,1986 is as follows:-
“Act not in derogation of any other law:- The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force”.
The complainant has relied on a decision decided by Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No. 1975/2005 against the order dt. 1.10.2005 in Appeal No. 244/04 of the State Commission, Karnatak, where in it has been held that:-
“Yet there is no bar to approach the District Forum for deficiency of service. The remedy under the said act would take care of disciplinary action and penalty against the competent authority in not furnishing the information but no remedy is provided under the said act to the applicant seeking information there in if information sought is not provided”.
Thus, as per the above decision of the National Commission though appeal provision is provided in the R.T.I.Act but there by the competent authority not supplying the information can be punished only but there is no provision at all for paying compensation to the complainant for deficiency in service or causing harassment. Therefore, as per the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission and as per Section-3 quoted above this case is maintainable even though there is appeal provision in the RTI Act, 2005.
Issue No.(ii):- The complainant has sought for information by depositing required fee of Rs. 10.00 through challan No. 574 dt. 12.9.2014 and this fact has not been disputed. So there is consumer and service provider relationship between the parties.
Issue No.(iii):- After receiving the application with required fee vide challan No. 574 dt. 12.9.2014 the opp.party should have intimated the complainant on proper calculation basis to deposit the rest fees but after 25 days he gave the reply vide letter No. 2428 dt. 20.10.2014 demanding Rs. 20,000.00 only for supplying the information without any basis and reasons. This indicates the delay in reply and deficiency in service. However, again the petitioner approached the opp.party in reply to the above cited letter vide letter dt. 28.10.2014 and in response to that letter the opp.party again replied vide letter No. 2547 dt. 7.11.2014 reaffirming his earlier stand regarding payment of fees of Rs. 20,000.00 only. Para-3 of letter No. 2547 dt. 7.11.2014 of the opp.party is extracted below for assessing the deficiency caused by him.
“(iii) Hence additional staff are required to compile such huge informations, There is no provision by the government to meet out the requirement. So I have assessed the requirement on actual basis and after done with the calculation sheet along with the balance funds, if any, will be returned to you”.
In para-3 he has clearly mentioned that as additional staffs are required to supply the information sought for and there is no provision by the govt. to meet out requirements, so he has assessed the requirement in actual basis and after done with, the calculation sheet along with the balance funds, if any will be returned. From this statement of the opp.party it is clear that he has not assessed the information properly according to folio wise as required under the provisions of the ACT. Further the provisions of RTI Act does not authorize to take excess fund to prepare the information due to want of staffs in his office.
From the foregoing discussions it is very clear that the opp.party has intentionally omitted to supply the information by demanding huge amount of Rs.20,000.00 which is not just and proper, for which he has caused deficit in service and harassment. Due to deficiency in service by the opp.party the complainant sustained severe mental agony and he has been forced to knock the doors of this forum by making expenses.
Issue No.(iv):- In view of the discussion made above in issue No. (i),(ii) & (iii) it is found that there is consumer and service provider relationship between the parties, the case is maintainable and the opp.party has made deficit in service and harassment by not supplying information intentionally ,for which the complainant has sustained mental agony and borne litigation expenses. The opp.party should compensate the complainant. According to the opinion of the forum, the opp.party should pay Rs. 3,000.00 towards deficit in service, Rs. 1,000.00 towards mental agony and Rs. 1,000.00 towards cost of litigation.
6. Hence ordered:-
: O R D E R :
The case is disposed of on contest. The opp.party is directed to pay Rs. 3,000.00 (Rupees Three Thousand) for causing deficit in service, Rs.1,000.00 (Rupees One Thousand) for mental agony and Rs. 1,000.00 (Rupees One thousand) for cost of litigation to the petitioner within 30 (thirty )days of this order. The opp.party is further directed to make the assessment of fees properly as per folio wise as provided under the RTI Act, 2005 and RTI Rules,2005 and send the same to the complainant within 30 (thirty) days of this order for depositing the same by the complainant .
Order delivered in the open forum
today the 25th July 2017 with
hand and seal of this Forum.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me Sd/-
(Sri D. C. Mishra)
Sd/- President.
(Sri D. C. Mishra)
President.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sri K.K.Mohanty), (Smt.S. Mallick),
Member. Member.
