BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM  (Under Consumer Protection Act, 1986)  MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY.
 

PRESENT: Sri Y. Aravinda Reddy, Spl Judge for SCs & STs (POA)                                  Act cum – V Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge / FAC President

Smt. Meena Ramanathan, B.Com., Lady Member

     Sri G.Sreenivas Rao, M.Sc., B.Ed.,LL.B., PGADR (NALSAR) Male Member

Tuesday, the 3^rd day of April, 2012

CC. No. 24 of 2011

Between:

A.             Yadaiah S/o Narsimlu,

Age: 29 yrs, Occ: Private Employee,

R/o 2-4-110/4,

Behind Nalanda School, Nalanda Nagar,

Sangareddy – 502 001,

Dist. Medak.                                                         …. Complainant

And

1.Prajasamachara Officer/DE (Tech),

A.P. Central Power Distribution Corporation Ltd.,

(APCPDCL), Sangareddy.

2. Appellate Authority/Superindent Engineer (SE),

APCPDCL, Sangareddy, Dist. Medak.

                 … Opposite parties

          This complaint has come up for final hearing on 23.02.2012 before us in the presence of complainant and counsel for the opposite parties Sri Anantha Rao Kulkarni, Advocate, upon hearing arguments of both sides, on perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum delivered the following:

O R D E R

(Per se G.Sreenivas Rao, Member)

                     The complaint is filed U/s 12 of C.P. Act 1986 to direct the opposite parties to furnish the information sought by the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards the mental agony and Rs. 500/- for the costs.

Brief facts of the case:

1.         The complainant sent two applications through courier service to opposite party No. 1 on 24.01.2011 along with requisite fee seeking information under RTI Act, 2005 regarding various appointments in Transco jurisdiction and secondly repairing undertaken to transformers during the period 2007-08 to 2010-11. He did not receive the information sought within the stipulated time i.e., 30 days so he made first appeal to opposite party No. 2 on 10.03.2011 with requisite fee. Even after four months, neither opposite party No. 1 nor opposite party No. 2 responded to his application. Thus he preferred this forum for redressal of his grievances – negligence & deficiency in service caused by opposite party Nos. 1 & 2. He even sought compensation of Rs. 10,500/- for having caused mental agony and costs for the litigation.

2.        In the version of the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2, they admitted that the information sought by the complainant is about 500 pages for which the opposite party has to take Xerox copies, for which the expenses incurred is about Rs. 3,000/-, therefore, the complainant has to deposit the same for getting the copies. Adding to it they also submitted that opposite party is collecting all information and has to depute officials to get information for which the Dept will incur expenditure also. Further the opposite parties say that there is no negligence and deficiency of service on their part, hence they are not liable for compensation & costs to the complainant. Finally they prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.

3.               In support of the claim, the complainant filed evidence affidavit along with documents and got marked as exhibits A1 to A4 and the opposite parties also did the same and marked the exhibits as B1 to B18. The complainant also filed written arguments whereas the opposite parties filed a memo to treat the counter as written arguments and also filed the citation of Hon’ble National Commission in R.P.No. 4061 of 2010 to strengthen their counter. The complainant advanced oral arguments also.

4.              Upon perusal of the aforesaid submission, the points to be considered in the instant case:

                Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party? And if so, in the light of the decision rendered by the Hon’ble National Commission in R.P. No. 4061 of 2010, should this case be entertained?

Point:

5.             The complainant made an application on 24.01.2011 and appeal on 10.03.2011 to opposite parties seeking relevant information under RTI Act, 2005 by paying the requisite fee to the authorities concerned. Whereas the opposite parties kept silent till filing the case on 23.05.2011 before this forum. Not only that in their counter also opposite parties admitted that they are preparing for submission of all information sought by the complainant and also reveals that Rs. 3,000/- must be deposited by the complainant to receive the information (500 pages). On this count itself it proves that the opposite parties were negligent and caused deficiency in service to the complainant. Ultimately, the opposite parties filed all the documents (sought by the complainant) in this forum on 15.11.2011, that is after six months of struggle since the date of filing this case. The complainant was also given a set of these documents.

                In this context, it may be recalled the salient provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, relevant in the instant case.

                RTI/Sec. 6(3)(i) & (ii): The public authority shall transfer the application within five days from the date of receipt of application to another public authority, if the subject matter is not available with the PIO concerned.

                RTI/Sec 7(3): To provide the information on payment of any further fee, the PIO concerned should request the applicant to deposit that fees, the PIO/AO shall send an intimation to the person within 30 days time limit.

                RTI/Sec. 7(6): The information shall be provide free of charge where a public authority fails to comply with the time limits specified.

                From the submissions of opposite parties (PIO and appellate authority), the facts speak for themselves in not adhering to the provisions of RTI Act mentioned supra. In one way they have been killing the spirit of RTI Activists in not providing the information sought. The forum observed ‘highest degree of carelessness’ in dealing with the right of applicant/ complainant in the present case, which is against the constitution of the Nation. So this point is answered in favour of complainant.

                Secondly in view of the order of the Hon’ble National Commission in R.P. No. 4061 of 2010, it held as follows:

                “the complainant cannot be considered as a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, since there is a remedy available for the complainant to approach the appellate authority U/s 19 of the RTI Act, 2005”, Hence, this forum cannot entertain the present complaint. This point is answered against the complainant.

                In the result, the complaint is not allowed with a direction to the complainant to redress before the State PIO as per the provisions of RTI Act 2005.

         Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum this  03^rd  day of April, 2012.

          Sd/-                              Sd/-                            Sd/-

   FAC PRESIDENT         LADY MEMBER            MALE MEMER

WITNESS EXAMINED

For the complainant:                                       For the opposite parties:-

-NIL-                                                                        -NIL-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For the complainant:                                       For the opposite parties:-

Sd/-                                Sd/-                            Sd/-

FAC PRESIDENT         LADY MEMBER             MALE MEMER

Copy to

1)   The Complainant           Copy delivered to the Complainant/

2)   The Opposite parties                      Opp.parties on __________

3)   Spare copy

Dis.No.             /2012, dt.