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
Friday, the 13th day of April, 2012
CC. No. 60 of 2011
Between:
A. Yadaiah S/o Sri Narsimlu,
Age: 29 yrs, Occ: Private Employee,
R/o No. 2-4-110/4,
Behind Nalanda School, Nalanda Nagar,
Sangareddy – 502 001,
Dist. Medak. …. Complainant
(Party-in-person)
And
1.Public Information Officer,
Municipal Council,
Sangareddy, Dist. Medak.
2. Commissioner /Appellate Authority,
Municipal Council,
Sangareddy, Dist. Medak.
… Opposite parties
This complaint has come up for final hearing on 22.03.2012 before us in the presence of complainant Sri A. Yadaiah and Sri J. Ram Reddy, Advocate for opposite parties., 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)
This case is filed U/s 12 of C.P. Act 1986 to direct the opposite parties to furnish the required information free of cost under the provisions of RTI Act,2005 along with compensation of Rs. 99,000/- for deficiency in service & mental agony caused by opposite parties and to pay Rs. 1,000/- for costs incurred.
Brief facts of the case:
1. The complainant, who is an RTI activist made an application under RTI Act, 2005 to opposite party No. 1 to furnish same information pertaining to the period 2008 to 2011 year. He says he was not given the information even after appeal dt. 01.03.2011 made to opposite party No. 2. Similarly to another application made on 21.07.2011 to opposite party No. 1 and followed by appeal to opposite party No. 2/appellate authority on 27.08.2011 and again a representation to opposite party No. 2 on 13.09.2011, the opposite party No. 2 finally responded in a (2) page letter on 14.09.2011 for the queries/information sought by the complainant on 21.07.2011. But the contention of the complainant is that even then he received insufficient information, prior to it, he also made an application to opposite party No. 1 on 24.07.2010 (through courier service) seeking information on various central and state funded schemes and its implementation and he also sought information about leasing out of shopping complexes from the year 2006 to 2010. He did not receive the same even after 30 days time limit so he appealed to opposite party No. 2 on 08.09.2010, but failed to receive information from opposite party No. 2 also. The complainant finally submits that he fed up with the attitude of municipal authorities / PIOs, thus instead of second appeal, he preferred action on the officials concerned with a compensation of one lakh Rupees for mental agony, costs etc. The complainant filed all documents but not insisted to mark as exhibits.
2. The opposite parties submitted that at the time of demolition of old building of Municipal Office in the year 2010 the entire records were shifted to a school at Rajampet & dumped in a room. So at the time of application of the complainant, records were not available in thep office, as such opposite parties could not furnish the information sought within time. Meanwhile the opposite parties traced some information and therefore could furnish the information to the complainant on 14.09.2011. The opposite parties also submit that non furnishing the information either completely or within time to the complainant was neither intentional nor deliberate one.
3. The opposite parties further submit that the provisions of RTI Act 2005 provides the complainant to seek remedy at the appellate authority, if he is not satisfied with the information given or the information is not given within time. The seeker of the information under RTI Act will not fit in within the definition of C.P. Act 1986 and the information which furnished under the RTI Act cannot be equated with that of service. The opposite parties also insist on the point that the complainant is in the habit of blackmailing the officials to extract money. They also question that the complainant failed to explain in what way he suffered loss or mental agony for claiming Rs. 99,000/ compensation from opposite parties. As such the complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. The opposite parties have not filed any documents as exhibits.
Point:
4. Whether this forum has jurisdiction to entertain the case of RTI Act 2005?
5. From the perusal of the documents in the instance case, the deficiency of service is caused by the opposite parties on various counts, even the opposite parties admitted the same. The applicant / complainant has to exhaust the channels of RTI Act. The complainant can appeal under the sections 19 & 20 of RTI Act, instead he preferred redressal before this forum, which is not acceptable in view of the order of the Hon’ble National Commission in R.P. No. 4061 of 2010. Wherein it is held that the complainant cannot be considered as a consumer as defined under the C.P. 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 has no jurisdiction to entertain the instant case.
6. In the result, the complaint is rejected with a direction to make use of the various options available under RTI Act for his redressal.
Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum this 13th 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:-
-Nil- -Nil-
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
FAC PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER MALE MEMER
Copy to
1) The Complainant
2) The Opposite parties Copy delivered to the Complainant/
3) Spare copy Opp.parties on _____
Dis.No. /2012, dt.
