BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT PUDUCHERRY
THURSDAY, the 27th day of October, 2016
FIRST APPPEAL No. 23/2015
M.Danasegar,
S/o (late) Muthukrishnan,
AW-6, Govt. Staff Quarters,
Lawspet, Puducherry. …….. Appellant
Vs.
The Public Information Officer,
Rajiv Gandhi Govt. Women & Children Hospital,
Ellapillaichavady
……… Respondent
FIRST APPPEAL No. 24/2015
M.Danasegar,
S/o (late) Muthukrishnan,
AW-6, Govt. Staff Quarters,
Lawspet, Puducherry. …….. Appellant
Vs.
The Public Information Officer,
Dept. of Personnel & Administrative Reforms,
Chief Secretariat, Puducherry ……… Respondent
FIRST APPPEAL No. 25/2015
M.Danasegar,
S/o (late) Muthukrishnan,
AW-6, Govt. Staff Quarters,
Lawspet, Puducherry. …….. Appellant
Vs.
The First Appellate Authority,
Rajiv Gandhi Govt. Women & Children Hospital,
Ellapillaichavady
……… Respondent
FIRST APPPEAL No. 26/2015
M.Danasegar,
S/o (late) Muthukrishnan,
AW-6, Govt. Staff Quarters,
Lawspet, Puducherry. …….. Appellant
Vs.
1. The Public Information Officer,
Law Department,
Puducherry.
2. The First Appellate Authority,
Law Department, Puducherry …….. Respondent
(On appeal against the Common Order passed in 16 un-numbered C.C. of 2013, dt.19.06.2015 by District Forum, Puducherry)
Un-Numbered C.C. of 2015 (SR No.17/2015)
M.Danasegar,
S/o (late) Muthukrishnan,
AW-6, Govt. Staff Quarters,
Lawspet, Puducherry. …….. Appellant
Vs.
The Public Information Officer,
Rajiv Gandhi Govt. Women & Children Hospital,
Ellapillaichavady
……… Respondent
Un-Numbered C.C. of 2015 (SR No.18/2015)
M.Danasegar,
S/o (late) Muthukrishnan,
AW-6, Govt. Staff Quarters,
Lawspet, Puducherry. …….. Appellant
Vs.
The Public Information Officer,
Dept. of Personnel & Administrative Reforms,
Chief Secretariat, Puducherry ……… Respondent
Un-Numbered C.C. of 2015 (SR No.65/2015)
M.Danasegar,
S/o (late) Muthukrishnan,
AW-6, Govt. Staff Quarters,
Lawspet, Puducherry. …….. Appellant
Vs.
The First Appellate Authority,
Rajiv Gandhi Govt. Women & Children Hospital,
Ellapillaichavady
……… Respondent
Un-Numbered C.C. of 2015 (SR No.105/2015)
M.Danasegar,
S/o (late) Muthukrishnan,
AW-6, Govt. Staff Quarters,
Lawspet, Puducherry. …….. Appellant
Vs.
1. The Public Information Officer,
Law Department,
Puducherry.
2. The First Appellate Authority,
Law Department, Puducherry …….. Respondent
BEFORE:
HON’BLE THIRU JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN,
PRESIDENT
THIRU S.TIROUGNANASSAMBANDANE,
MEMBER
FOR THE APPELLANT:
Party-in-person
FOR THE RESPONDENT:
Thiru S. Tamilselvan,
Government Pleader, Puducherry (For all respondents)
C O M M O N O R D E R
These appeals have been filed against the common order in un-numbered complaint, dated 19.06.2015 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum ('District Forum' for short), Puducherry. Though as much as 16 complaints have been filed before the District Forum, appeals have been filed before this Commission only against the four orders.
2. The complainant thereon is the appellant herein and the opposite parties thereon are the respondents herein. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred according to their litigating status in the District Forum.
3. The Public Information Officer Rajiv Gandhi Government Women & Children Hospital, Puducherry has been named as opposite party in two of the complaints. In the other complaint, the Law Department has been made as first opposite party and the First Appellate Authority of Law Department, Puducherry has been made as 2nd opposite party. In the other complaint the Public Information Officer, Dept. of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Puducherry is the Opposite Party. In the two complaints, which is the subject of two appeals before this Commission, the complainant has filed the complaint before the District Forum making the following statements: (a) he is working LDC under Government of Puducherry and he is a honest and hard working public servant. There is no adverse remarks against him. He used to fight against the malpractice found in the Government Offices. Therefore, sought information under Right to Information Act (hereinafter called 'RTI Act' for convenience) from the Public Information Officer (PIO) and the information has been provided to him on 07.12.2012. Either the answers are incorrect or there is no answer for his questions. For some questions, misleading answers were given. Therefore, he suffered mental agony, loss, humiliation, loss of time and loss of money, etc. It is nothing but deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act. The reply was sent by ordinary post. Therefore, he has filed those two complaints seeking the relief of (a) to hold that there is deficiency in service provided by the opposite party (b) to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant for pain, suffering, loss and mental agony caused by deficiency in service, (c) to award cost of the complaint (d) award cost of adjournment caused by opposite party, not less than Rs.500/- per adjournment and (e) directing the public authority to recover compensation and cost from the pension/other amount or other asset of the erred official.
4. As regards the other complaint, which was against the Public Information and First Appellate Authority, Law Department, Puducherry, the complainant made the following:
He sought information under RTI Act from the Public Information Officer by an application dated, 06.10.2012. He got information from the PIO through his letter, dated.04.11.2012. He preferred first appeal on 04.12.2012 before the First Appellate Authority – the second opposite party. He has sent a letter for personal hearing. In the first personal hearing, the first appellate authority misbehaved him and made him to stand during the hearing. His act is in violation of RTI Act, legal principles and CCS (Conduct) Rules.
5. Therefore, in the complaint, he has sought the following reliefs:
(a) Holding that there is deficiency in service provided by the opposite party, (b) directing the public authority to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for physical, mental harassment, loss of precious time and money caused by concerned official (c) directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.500/- as minimum amount for an adjournment asked by opposite party, (d) awarding cost of this complaint (e) directing the public authority to recover the compensation, cost and expenses of this complaint from the salary, pension/other asset of the concerned official (f) directing to deduct Rs.4,00,000/- from the salary/pension amount of Mr.Gamdick because he misbehaved with the complainant and directed others to perform their duties and thus misused his official powers and (g) such other relief.
6. Yet another complaint which is the subject matter of the appeal before us, the Rajiv Gandhi Government Hospital for Women and Children alone is made as opposite party. In the said complaint, the following statements have been made by the complainant:
7. He is working as LDC in Government of Puducherry and he is honest and hard working public servant. There is no adverse entry in any of his confidential report. He also reveals and fights against the malpractices found in Government Offices. He had sought information under RTI Act to reveal such malpractices and faced many threats and acts of harassment and vengeance He sought information under RTI Act from the PIO by sending application. The PIO has sent reply dated 16.10.2012. Aggrieved by the reply furnished by the PIO, the complainant preferred appeal dated 14.11.2012. The First Appellate Authority passed order, dated 21.12.2012. It is a single order for four separate appeals which is a wrong practice. It is not a reasoned or speaking order. Many false allegations have been made against me in the said order. The order itself speak that the First Appellate Authority had initiated disciplinary proceedings, as he sought information under RTI Act. Therefore, he suffered mental agony, loss of time and loss of money. That apart, there is procedural defect in the order. It is a deficiency in service. Therefore, in the said complaint, he sought the following reliefs:
a) Holding that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party, (b) directing the public authority to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony, pain, loss, injustice suffered by him, (c) directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.500/- as minimum for an adjournment asked by the opposite party, (d) cost of the complaint, (e) directing the public authority to recover compensation, cost and other sum from his pension/other asset of the concerned official who had passed the order.
8. This complaint along with other complaints were disposed of by a common order by the District Forum on 19.06.2015 stating that the complainant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act and that there is remedy available under the RTI Act.
9. As already stated the complainant has filed four appeals before this Commission against four orders only.
10. We have heard the appellant/party-in-person and also the Government Pleader appearing for the respondents..
11. The complainant vehemently contended that the order passed by the District Forum is against law and on facts. He has further contended that the District Forum erred in hold that the complainant is not a consumer. It is a wrong order and several points raised by him in the written arguments were not considered. That apart, the citations relied on by him was also not considered. He has further contended that several decisions of the Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court and the decisions rendered by Hon'ble National Commission were not considered. He has also filed the written arguments.
12. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the appeals preferred by the complainant are not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complainant is not a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. We have carefully considered the submissions made by appellant/party-in-person and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
13. The complainant preferred as many as 16 complaints before the District Forum. But, however, only four appeals have been preferred before us. In the memorandum of appeal, though the complainant refers about 7 complaints, as stated already, he has preferred only four appeals.
14. In one complaint, which is the subject matter of the appeal, the complainant added two opposite parties, namely, the Public Information Officer and the First Appellate Authority, Law Department, Puducherry. In the cause title, he mentioned about only one opposite party. In the said complaint, his grievance was that instead of First Appellate Authority, the Law Officer sent the letter for personal hearing and that the order has not been sent by the First Appellate Authority within a period of 30 days. His further argument is that the First Appellate Authority cannot delegate his function. He has added that in the first hearing the First Appellate Authority misbehaved with him and made him to stand in the hearing.
15. Thus, the complainant in the complaint expressed his grievance about the First Appellate Authority, who was made as 2nd opposite party in the complainant. However, he has not been made as party in the appeal. When the grievance of the complainant is against the 2nd opposite party, he should have been made a party in the appeal so that he could be heard on the complaint.
16. That apart no deficiency of service on the part of the First Appellate Authority has been made out by the complainant. How the First Appellate Authority has misbehaved with him?, what is the misbehavior?, were not set out by the complainant. Merely because he has been made to stand in the personal hearing, it cannot be said that there is deficiency in service on the part of First Appellate Authority. Hence, we are of the view that the complainant has not made out any case in the said matter.
17. As far as the other appeal is concerned, the complainant has made the First Appellate Authority alone as the opposite party. In this appeal, he has not been made the said authority as a party at all. In the complainant he has not stated that the order of the First Appellate Authority did not analyse the questions in the RTI and the information furnished by the Public Information Officer. He has further added that the First Appellate Authority made false allegations in the order. Even this complaint is vague and do not show any deficiency in service on the part of First Appellate Authority. Even otherwise, when the First Appellate Authority was not made as a party in the appeal, we are not in a position to pass any order in favour of the complainant, even assuming the complainant has made out a case against the First Appellate Authority.
18. In regard to the other appeal, in Para 3 of the complaint, the complainant states as follows:
"Answer for 1st query is not in accordance with the decision of CIC in case of similar type of queries. There is no answer for second query. Answer for 3, 4 and 5 query is wrong and misleading. Sixth query was partly answered. There are procedural defects in the reply of PIO.
19. If reply is not sent or not answered properly, the complainant could have preferred appeal before the First Appellate Authority. However, he has straightaway approached this Commission for compensation for mental agony, loss of money, etc. In our considered view, the appellant should have been approached the higher authority seeking redressal which is provided under the RTI Act.
20. In yet another complaint which is the subject matter of another appeal before us, the complainant has stated as follows.
"There are many procedural defect in reply of PIO. The reply was sent by ordinary post. The reply for Query No.1 and Query No.8 to 21 is false and misleading. The reply is against the provisions of RTI Act and decision of Central Information Commission."
21. In our considered view, if the answers given by RTI Authority is false and misleading, the complainant should explain what is the false statement given by the opposite party and how he says it is misleading. Nothing has been made in the complaint which is very vague.
22. Thus, we are of the view that the complainant has not made out anything about the opposite party/opposite parties. That apart, the other question that has arisen before this Commission is whether the complainant is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act or not. In our considered view this question does not arise since in the above paras it is decided that the complainant has not made out any case against the opposite party/opposite parties. Taking such view, the order of the District Forum is liable to be confirmed, though on a different reason.
23. The appeals thus have been dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs.
Dated this the 27th day of Octobere, 2016
(Justice. K.VENKATARAMAN)
PRESIDENT
(S.TIOROUGNANASSAMBANDANE)
MEMBER
