IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC-170 /2014.
Date of Filing: 04.12.2014. Date of Final Order: 30.11.2015.
Complainant: Sri Pritam Bhattacharya, S/O Lt. Manotosh Bhattacharya & Smt. Gouri Bhattacharya,
95,South A.C. Road, P.O. Khagra, Dist. Murshidabad. West Bengal-743103.
-Vs-
Opposite Party: a. CPIO cum DGM, BSNL, Berhampore Telecom, P.O. Berhampore,
Dist. Murshidabad. W.B. Pin 742101.
(b) GM BSNL Berhampore Telecom, P.O. Berhampore, Dist. Murshidabad, WB-742101.
Present: Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya ………………….President.
Smt. Pranati Ali ……….……………….……………. Member
FINAL ORDER
Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya ,Presiding Member.
The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 praying for compensation of Rs.20 lacs and supply of hardcopy and soft copy of tower location and conversation as prayed for.
The complainant’s case, in brief, is that in the month of March, 2014 the complainant applied before OP Nos. 1 & 2 under RTI regarding information of the question mentioned in Annexure A of complaint petition and afterwards preferred an appeal in the month of April 2014 before GM, Appellate Authority which is still pending and such acts fall under violation of Articles 14, 21 of the Constitution of India which is involvement on war against nation and violation of RTI & CP Act. To safeguard IPS Humayun Kabir from Court martial, lifetime imprisonment , 50 crores compensation to the complainant Islamic State Businesses like ISIS/Taliban/JMB/IM already inforce by Md. S. Ali(DGM) and C.R. Mahapatra(GM) and ors Berhampore Telecom District through continuous denial to provide their complete CRD consisting entire mobile tower location , all conversations , sms of complainant and his family. These are vindictive acts of Md. S. Ali, DGM and C.R. Mahapatra, GM & Others of BSNL, MSD causing a great deal of mental agony, harassment, social losses and breach of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19 & 21 of Constitution of India. Delivery of the mobile tower location of the complainant and his wife w.e.f 20.12.11 to 26.12.11 is still not in force. Delivery of complete CDR consisting entire mobile tower location , conversation of complainant , his wife and DSP CRPF on 18.3.12 are still not in force. Hence, the instant complaint case.
The written version filed by the OP, in brief, is that the complaint contains no specific allegations against the Opposite Parties. The contents of the petition are not clear. The complainant gave an application under RTI Act 2005 on 24.03.2014. The reply was sent to him Vide Letter No. RTI/BHB/2014-2015/50, but it was returned with the remark “Absent Six Days”. Moreover, the application was not specific about his demand from BSNL. Again, the complainant sent his RTI application on 30.04.2014. The Opposite Party however gave a reply vide Letter No. RTI/BHB/2014-2015/50, on 16.06.2014. The RTI application contained several complaints against the Police Officials. But no application was clear to understand. The information was incomplete. He wanted the details of conversation recording between the petitioner and his wife. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. This Opposite Party took no amount from the petitioner. So, the petitioner is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection act. In RTI Act there is specific provision in case of violation of law by the party. Consumer Forum is not the proper Court to get relief, if any. The complaint is liable to be rejected. Hence, the instant written version.
Considering the pleadings of both parties the following points have been framed for the disposal of the case.
Points for consideration:-
- Whether the case is maintainable or not?
- Whether the complainant is a consumer or not?
- Whether the case is barred by law of limitation or not?
- Whether the case is barred by waiver, estoppels and acquiescence?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to relief as prayed for?
- To what other relief/reliefs the complainant may get?
Decision with Reasons.
Point Nos. 1 to 6.
All the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience.
The instant complaint is for supply of point wise hard copy of information as to tower location and conversation between the complainant , his wife ,brother and sisters as per Annexure-A, claimed in appeal under RTI Act and compensation of Rs.20 lacs deducting from the salary and savings of DGM & GM, BSNL Berhampore.
Initially, the complainant filed the complaint against Md. S. Ali, CPIO cum DGM, BSNL, Berhampore Sri C.R. Mohapatra, GM, BSNL Berhampore praying for the above same relief including compensation of Rs.20 Lacs deducting from the salary and savings of MD.S. Ali, DGM and Sri C.R. Mohapatra, G.M.
Subsequently, the complaint has been amended deleting the names of OP Nos. 1 & 2 Md. S.Ali and C.R. Mohapatra respectively both in the cause title and prayer portion and amended complaint petition has been filed accordingly.
Admittedly, at the relevant Md. S. Ali and C.R. Mahapatra were DGM and GM of BSNL, Berhampore respectively.
Where, a prayer for payment of compensation after amendment is Rs. 20 lacs to be deducted from the salary and savings of DGM & GM, BSNL, Berhampore.
Md. S. Ali and Sri C.R. Mohapatra being DGM & GM, BSNL, Berhampore respectively at the relevant time, if compensation is allowed the same is to be deducted from the salary and savings of them as per prayer but they are not parties to this case.
Thus, the prayer for compensation cannot be allowed without making Md. S. ali and C.R. Mohaparata, the then DGM & GM, BSNL, Berhampore respectively.
The complainant’s main case is that the OP-BSNL, DGM & GM, Berhampore have not supplied information asked for under RTI Act relating to tower location and conversation in between complainant , his wife, brother and sister as per annexure-A.
To prove the case the complainant has adduced evidence on affidavit and relevant documents in support of his case.
On the other hand the OP has filed seven documents including the letter of GMT, Berhampore Telecom regarding information under the provisions of RTI Act, 2005 which shows that the complainant is not entitled to get information as per bar u/S 8(1)(e) &(j).
Section 8(1) (e) & (j) are noted as below:-
(e) Information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclose of such information.
(j) Information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which should cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer of the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the lager public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.
The Ld. Lawyer for the OP submits during his argument that the above letter as written to the complainant and the same was sent to the complaint by Speed Post which was returned un-served with the remark “absence for six days”.
Against, this argument the complainant has advanced argument challenging that the same was not intimated by the postman to the complainant.
Be that as it may, it is now clear that at this stage before this Forum the question of entitlement of the complainant for getting such information under RTI Act is to be decided.
Further the Ld. Lawyer for the OP has advanced argument referring two reported decisions in 1(2014) CPJ 444(NC) S. Dorai Raj Vs. Divisional Personnel Officer & Nodal Public Information Officer, Southern Railway, Mudurai & Anr. and in I(2014) CPJ-199(Har) State Public Information Officer Vs. Kali Ram as to the jurisdiction of this Forum to entertain the matter relating to RTI Act and RTI Act being the complete code, this case is not maintainable before this Forum.
Regarding the remedy of the complainant the ld. lawyer for the OP has advance argument referring the provisions u/s 19 that there is scope of 1st appeal and second appeal.
In the reported decision in I(2014) CPJ 444(NC) relating to the case alleging deficiency in service by the OP to provide information sought by the complainant under RTI Act, the Hon’ble National Commission has observed in para 8 as under:-
“The RTI Act is a Code in itself. It provides for remedies
available under this Act to a person who has been
denied any information. Since, petitioner has
specific remedy available to him under the RTI Act
and which he has already availed, the present
Consumer complaint does not lie under the Act.”
In this case the complainant has not already availed any relief under RTI Act.
Further in the reported decision in I(2014) CPJ-199 (Har.) State Public Information Officer Vs. Kali Ram relating to the case for non-supply of information under RTI Act which was allowed by the ld. Dist. Forum and the appeal has been preferred before the Hon’ble State Commission wherein it has been observed in para 8 as under referring the reported decision of Hon’ble S.C in the case cited as Khanapuram Gandaiah v. Administrative Officer and Ors. I(2010) SLT661 and noted that the appeal was accepted, impugned order was set arise and the complaint was dismissed.
“In the instant case the complainant has already availed the remedy by filing appeal against the order of State Public Information Officer and thus the District Forum cannot sit as an appellate authority against the orders passed by State Public Information Officer as well as the competent authority, who dismissed the appeal. District Consumer Forum has failed to appreciate this legal aspect of the case, hence, the impugned order cannot sustain.”
In this case there is no question of 28 days delayed in complete information though such appeal was preferred by the complainant before the Appellate Authority under RTI Act but such appeal was not dismissed by the Appellate Authority under RTI Act. The same is pending . The complainant has not received any information.
In the aforesaid reported decision in 1(2014) CPJ-199(Haryana) referred by the ld. lawyer for the OP, the Dist Forum allowed the complaint and appeal was preferred against that order which was set aside wherein the observation of the Dist. Forum while allowing the complaint has been mentioned as under:-
“…………………… in view of above observation and the law
laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission in its
various above judgments the complainant is a Consumer
vis-à-vis information sought on payment of fee under
the said Act which was found to be incomplete and thus,
OP was deficiency in providing services to the
complainant. The complaint is not barred under Consumer
Protection Act and the bar only relates to the Court and the
Consumer Fora is not a Court. Thus, the complaint is
very much maintainable against the OP hence, non-supply
of the information to the complainant in time within specified
period of 30 days amounts to deficiency of service on the
part of the OP and the complainant is entitled to
compensation of Rs.5000. He however can also seek
information from the sender of said letter
Excise Taxation Commissioner, Haryana as the OP has
already failed to supply the information as not available.
He is also entitled to litigation expenses of Rs.3, 000/- .
Compliance be made within 30 days failing which the
complainant will be entitled to get interest @9% p.a.
from the date of filing of the complaint till realization.”
From this observation relying upon the law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission, it is clear that complaint is not barred under C.P. Act as per prov. u/s 23 of the RTI Act.
Sec. 23 of RTI Act provides as under:
“No court shall entertain any suit, application or other proceeding in respect of any order made under this Act and no such order shall be called in question otherwise than by w ay of an appeal under this Act.”
Sec. 3 of C.P. Act is as under:-
“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. “
This Forum being not a court and relying upon the provisions u/s 3 of the C.P. Act the complaint can be filed for additional remedy only for compensation for deficiency in service under RTI Act.
In this regard the settled principle of law is as under:
- The RTI Act bars the jurisdiction of the courts but not the Consumer Fora as the C.P. Act is meant to be an additional remedy.
- A complaint filed to claim compensation for deficiency in service for failure would be maintainable under C.P Act as the RTI Act does not deal with compensation for deficiency in service.
- Even if a particular law barred the jurisdiction of the courts, a complaint still be filed under C.P. Act, as it provides additional remedy.
In this case the complainant has prayed for compensation of Rs.20 lacs deducting from the savings and salary of the concerned Ops by name but they are not parties to this case though initially they were parties but out of them, one being retired and another being transferred notices returned un-served. Then they were expunged by the complainant and also prayed for supply of information mainly supply of hard copy and soft copy of tower location and conversation.
Compensation cannot be granted without hearing the parties as there is prayer for realization of compensation deducting from the salary and savings of the concerned parties where they are not parties to this case.
On the other hand, Ops have contended the case by filing Written version and filing relevant documents wherefrom it appears that the letter dated 02.05.14 written by OP No.2 to the complainant intimating the reasons as to why the information sought for, cannot be supplied point wise including the bar u/s 8(1)(j) of RTI Act.
This letter returned un-served with the remarks that the complainant was absent for six days.
The complainant himself has advanced argument challenging the said absence that no intimation was given to him as to that letter.
Be that as it may all these are question of adjudication considering evidence.
Further, at this stage it is clear before this Forum that now this case is not only for additional remedy to provide compensation but also for supply of information where there is question of exemption u/s 8(1)(j) of RTI Act for getting information of some points and some other points which are not possible being not related to this BSNL.
Thus, all these questions are point of law to be decided as per provisions under RTI and it is clear that this Forum has no jurisdiction to decide those questions as per provisions of RTI Act.
Relating to dispute for deficiency in service under RTI Act this Forum has only jurisdiction to entertain to provide additional remedy as to providing compensation for deficiency in service for non-supply of information within stipulated time or giving incomplete information.
Considering the above discussions as a whole we can safely conclude that this Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the legal question under RTI Act and for that the complainant is at liberty to file the case before the appropriate forum and as such the case be disposed of.
Hence,
ORDERED
that this Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the points of law under RTI Act, 2005 as raised and as such the complainant is at liberty to file the case before the appropriate Forum .
Accordingly, the Consumer Complaint No. 170/2014 be and the same is hereby disposed of finally.
There will be no order as to cost.
Let a plain copy of this order be made available and be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties on contest in person, Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand under proper acknowledgment / be sent forthwith under ordinary post to the concerned parties as per rules, for information and necessary action.
