O R D E R ; ( Per Shri B.R. Chandel, President).
The complainant on the strength of application Annexure C-2 dated 05-01-2011 sought information under Right to Information Act from the opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.1 vide letter Annexure C-4 dated 18-01-2011 sent the said application to opposite party No.2 to supply requisite information to the complainant on the ground that the subject matter of information pertained to his office. The complainant was intimated accordingly. A copy of the said letter was also sent to the complainant. The opposite party No.2 replied to the letter of opposite party Annexure C-4 vide letter dated 01-02-2011 Annexure C-5 intimating that the record relating to the supply of information had been shifted to Government Senior Secondary School, Majehri, in the year 1992 and the complainant was intimated accordingly, upon which the opposite party No.1 issued letter to opposite party No.3 and requested him to supply the information. The opposite party No.3 vide letter Annexure C-6 intimated the opposite party No.2 that service book of Babu Ram, PET, was in the office of opposite party No.2. The opposite parties further corresponded between them through letter Annexure C-7, but the said information was not supplied.
2. In view of the above stated undisputed facts, the complainant on the strength of this complaint has claimed that the opposite parties be directed to pay Rupees 90,000/- (Rupees 50,000/- for deficiency in service and Rupees 40,000/- for harassment, torture, insult and humiliation of the complainant) on the grounds that the complainant since the date of filing of the application i.e. 05-01-2011 visited the opposite parties several times, but the opposite parties failed to supply the requisite information for the period more than one year instead of within the period of 30 days under the Right to Information Act, which amounts to deficiency in service due to which the complainant has suffered harassment, monetary loss and humiliation.
3. The opposite parties disputed the said claim of the complainant and have set up the defense that the opposite parties made and are making all the efforts to trace Service Book of Babu Ram, PET, but the same could not be traced. It appears that his Service Book has been misplaced, hence the same is required to be reconstructed after following prescribed period hence there is no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties. The opposite parties have taken up further defense that the complainant never preferred an appeal to the Director of Elementary Education or State Information Commission under the provisions of Right to Information Act, hence the present complaint before this Forum is not maintainable.
4. Both the parties have led evidence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the complaint.
6. There is no dispute that the opposite parties have failed to supply the requisite information within 30 days. The opposite parties have taken up the defense that they made every efforts to trace out the Service Book of Babu Ram , but the same could not be traced out, hence the same is required to be re-constructed which would take some time.
7. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has contended that the complaint is not maintainable because an equal and more efficacious remedy was available to the complainant to approach the Authority by preferring appeal or otherwise under the Right to Information Act itself hence the present complaint is not maintainable.
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that this Forum has the jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint because Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act provides additional remedy in addition to the remedies provided under other Acts and it has no interrogation of any provisions of any law and thus, this Forum has the jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint. In support of his arguments he has cited before this Forum the law laid down in case Dr. Thirmula Rai Versus Municipal Commissioner, Mysur City, reported in 2011(2) HIM Law Report 1058 (NC) in which it is held that consumer forum has jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint in respect of deficiency in service when information sought was not furnished under the Right to Information Act, but this Forum can lay its hand over the law laid down in a recently decided case Shri Kali Ram Versus State Public Information Officer-cum-Deputy Excise Taxation Commissioner, Gurgaon (East) Haryana, Revision Petition No. 1396/2013 decided on 09-10-2013 by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, after relying upon the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and distinguishing the law laid down in the case cited supra on behalf of the complainant in which it is held as under :
“5. This view stands emboldened by a recent judgment by a Bench consisting of Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.M. Malik and Hon’ble Dr. B.C.Gupta in the case of Smt. Tasleem Bint Hussain Vs. The State Public Information Officer, Revision Petition No. 737 of 2013 decided on 1st March, 2013 and the judgment rendered by a Bench headed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan, President in the case of T.Pundalika Vs. Revenue Department (Service Division) Government of Karnataka, RP No. 4061 of 2010, decided on 31-03-2011. In this case it was held :-
“Respondent, being aggrieved, filed an appeal before the State Commission, which has been allowed by observing thus:-
“At the outset, it is not in dispute that complainant had filed an application u/S 6&7 of the Right to Information Act to the OP.4. But 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”.
“We agree with the view taken by the fora below. Petitioner cannot be claimed to be a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. There is a remedy available for him to approach the Appellate Authority under Section 19 of the RTI Act, 2005. Dismissed.”
9. In view of the findings recorded and law cited supra, this Forum is bound to conclude that it has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint, hence the core question involved in the present complaint for determination cannot be decided for want of jurisdiction.
RELIEF:
In view of the findings recorded above, the complaint is dismissed being not maintainable as the complainant does not fall within the definition of the consumer as envisaged under Consumer Protection Act, 1986. No orders as to cost. Let certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost, as per rules. The file, complete in all respects, be consigned to the Records.
ANNOUNCED & SIGNED IN THE OPEN FORUM;
Today this the 21st day of January, 2015.
( B.R. Chandel)
President
(Manorma Chauhan) (Pawan Kumar)
Member Member
