Haryana

Ambala

CC/09/2014

SMT.KANTA DEVI W/O ISHWAR CHAND - Complainant(s)

Versus

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK - Opp.Party(s)

NAVNEET GUPTA

30 Jul 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

            Complaint Case No.: 09 of 2014

Date of Institution   :  03.01.2014

Date of Decision     :   30.07.2015

Smt. Kanta Devi  aged about 70 years W/o late Shri Ishwar Chand Sharma R/o H.No.1095, Kartar Nagar, Model Town, Ambala City.

                                                                                                      ……Complainant

Versus

1.         Branch Manager-cum-C.P.I.O., Punjab national Bank, Model Town Branch,  Ambala City.

2.         Chief Manager/Assistant General Manager-cum-Appellate Authority (Under RTI Act), Circle Office, PNB House, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh.

                                                                                                         ……Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

CORAM:        SH. A.K. SARDANA, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. ANIL SHARMA, MEMBER.                       

Present:           Sh. Navneet Gupta, Adv. for complainant.

                        Sh. Kavinder Chawla, Adv. for Ops.

ORDER.

                        Complainant has filed the present complaint alleging therein that her husband Sh. Ishwar Chand Sharma, who died on 20.04.2012 was having a Bank Account with the Op No.1 vide Account No.0521000100203039 and the complainant is nominee in that account. It has been further alleged that during hospitalization of her husband from 16.04.2012 to till his death, a sum of Rs.8,50,000/- was withdrawn by some stranger from the said bank account on 17.04.2012. So, the complainant by making an application dated 01.05.2013 alongwith requisite fee under Right to Information Act  sought information regarding payee of the abovesaid amount alongwith some other information from the OP No.1.  But the OP No.1 failed to supply the requisite information & documents and therefore, the complainant filed an appeal before the OP No.2 but despite various correspondence between the complainant & OP No.2, the Ops failed to supply the information to the complainant till 06.09.2013. Hence, the present complaint seeking relief as per prayer clause has been preferred before the Forum.

2.                     Upon notice, Ops put in appearance through counsel but failed to file written statement. Hence, their defence was struck off vide order dated 02.07.2014.

3.                     To prove the case, counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX alongwith documents as Annexures C-1  to C-8 and closed his evidence. 

4.                     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully.  Prior to deciding the case on merits, the first and foremost question arises for consideration before this Forum is that “whether the complaint in question is maintainable under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act?”

                        Counsel for complainant submitted a copy of judgment/order dated 13.12.2012 delivered in First Appeal No.1351 of 2012 titled as “SPIO, Haryana Staff Selection Commission Vs. Rajesh Sharma by our Hon’ble State Commission wherein it has been held that “Non-supplying of information under RTI Act by the SPIO is a deficiency in service and thus complaint under C.P. Act is maintainable before the District Forum”  But now, it has been settled by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi vide judgment dated 25.02.2013 delivered in case B.Vasudeva Shetty Vs. Kota Coop. Agricultural Bank Ltd. in Revision Petition No.3636 of 2012 reported in II(2013) CPJ  Pg.4 (NC) that “ Right to Information Act is a code in itself- it provides for remedies available under this act to a person who has been denied any information.  Since, the petitioner has specific remedy available to him under RTI Act and which he has already availed, complaint not maintainable under C.P.Act 1986.”

                        Aforesaid view have been further upheld by the Hon’ble National Commission in various Revision Petitions decided in a common judgment dated 08.01.2015 in Revision Petition No.3146 of 2012 titled as Sanjay Kumar Mishra Vs. Public Information Officer (PIO) & others etc. reported in 2015(1)CLT page 259 (NC) wherein  it has been held that “the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora to intervene in the matters arising out of the provisions of the RTI Act is barred by necessary implication as also under the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act”.  Hence, keeping in mind the observations referred in the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission, we are of the view that the present complaint is not maintainable before this Consumer Fora rather an appeal was maintainable before State Information Commission, Haryana. Hence, the present complaint is hereby dismissed being not maintainable with no order as to costs. However the complainant is granted liberty to approach the State Information Commission, Haryana in this regard, if she so desires.  Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of costs, as per rules.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

ANNOUNCED:30.07.2015     

                                                                                                               Sd/-

                                                                                                (A.K. SARDANA)

                                                                                                        PRESIDENT                 

                                                                                                                   

                                                                                               

                                                                                                            Sd/-

                                                                                                       (ANIL SHARMA)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 MEMBER

                                                                                    

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.