Punjab

Sangrur

CC/441/2021

Rajinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Regional Transport Officer-cum- Public Information Officer - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Davinder Pal Singh

03 Aug 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

 

                                                                        Complaint No. 441

 Instituted on:   22.03.2021

                                                                        Decided on:     03.08.2022

 

 

Rajinder Singh son of S. Karnail Singh, resident of Rampura, Tehsil and District Sangrur.

                                                          …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

Regional Transport Officer-cum-Public Information Officer, Sangrur, Tehsil and Distt. Sangrur.

             ….Opposite party. 

For the complainant    : Shri Davinder Pal Singh, Adv.           

For the OP                      : Exparte.

 

Quorum                                           

Jot Naranjan Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

 

                                                             FINAL ORDER

 

1.             Complainant has approached this Commission alleging inter-alia that on 18.1.2021 he sent an application under Right to Information Act, 2005 for knowing that how many motorcycles were sold under M/s. Sood Auto Agency and detail of RC of the said vehicles in whose name same was registered and bills and other documents. The complainant also deposited Rs.10/- with the application by way of postal order. Though the complainant approached the OP so many times for getting the information sought for, but the same was not provided nor the OP sent any communication in this regard to the complainant.   Further case of the complainant is that thereafter again the complainant requested the OP so many times to provide the information, but all in vain. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment and further payment of Rs.4400/- as litigation expenses.

2.             The OP did not appear despite service on 29.9.2021 as such, the OP was proceeded against exparte on 10.12.2021.

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant produced evidence before this Commission in the shape of documents and affidavit.

4.             We have gone through the pleadings put in by the complainant along with supporting documents with his valuable assistance.

5.             Learned counsel for the complainant has argued vehemently that the complainant submitted an application  on 18.1.2021  to the OP under Right to Information Act, 2005 for knowing that how many motorcycles were sold under M/s. Sood Auto Agency and detail of RC of the said vehicles in whose name same was registered and bills and other documents, copy of application on record is Ex.C-2. The complainant also deposited Rs.10/- with the application by way of postal order as is evident from the counterfoil, Ex.C-4. Though the complainant approached the OP so many times for getting the information sought for, but the same was not provided nor the OP sent any communication in this regard to the complainant, as such the OP is said to be deficient in its service.

6.             Section 100 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 provides an additional remedy wherein it is provided that the provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. In the present case, the OP has not passed any order on account of which the question of bar of jurisdiction does not arise. Further it is also proved on record that OP did not furnish the requisite information despite accepting the payment in the shape of postal order from the complainant. The Consumer Protection Act was enacted as a benevolent legislation to provide speedy justice to the people at large. Reliance can also be placed on record with the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as M/s. National Seeds Corporation Ltd. versus M. Madhusudhan Reddy and another decided on 16.1.2012, wherein it is mentioned :-

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 3 and 13(1) ( c) – Goods sold by seller – Goods found to be defective – Consumer has remedy under Consumer Protection Act, though he may have alternative remedy under the provisions of any other Act. “

“Remedy available to consumer under Consumer Protection Act is in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law.”

“Section 2(d) – Meaning of word consumer – The person who come within the definition of consumer explained – Held:

(i)     The definition of ‘consumer’ contained in section 2(d) of the Consumer Act is very wide – It takes within its fold any person who buys any goods for a consideration paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment.

(ii)    It also includes any person who uses the goods though he may not be buyer thereof provided that such use is with the approval of the buyer.

(iii)   It excludes a person who obtains the goods for resale or for any commercial purpose.”

 

7.             It is further in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 18 as under:-

“ At this stage, we may notice the background in which the Consumer Act was enacted and its salient features. The General Assembly of the United Nationals after extensive discussion and negotiations among Governments and taking into account the interest and needs of consumers in all countries, particularly those in developing countries, adopted the draft guidelines submitted by the Secretary General to the Economic and Social Council (UNESCO) in 1983. The objectives of these guidelines are:-

1. to assist countries in achieving or maintaining adequate protection for their population as consumers.
2. To facilitate production and distribution patterns responsive to the needs and desires of consumers.
3. To encourage high levels of ethical conduct for those engaged in the production and distribution of goods and services to consumers.
4. To assist countries in curbing abusive business practices by all enterprises at the national and international levels which adversely affect consumers.
5. To facilitate the development of independent consumer groups.
6. To further international cooperation in the field of consumer protection.
7. To encourage the development of market conditions which provide consumers with greater choice at lower prices.”

 

8.             Further in the judgment Skypack Couriers Ltd. versus Tata Chemicals  Limited AIR 2000 Supreme Court (2008) has held that despite the existence of arbitration clauses, the complaint by the consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was tenable since remedy provides under the Act is in addition to the provisions of law for the time being in force. Further the learned counsel for the OP has cited Dr. S.P. Thirumala Rao versus Municipal Commissioner Mysore City Municipal Corporation, Revision Petition No. 1975 of 2005, decided on 28.5.2009 (NC), wherein it has been held that the case of the applicant would fall within the scope and ambit of section 2(i)(o) of CP Act, which provides that service means service of any description which is made available to potential users, which include purveying of news or supplying of other information. The complainant had availed of the services under the said Act for consideration by paying fee and had sought information under the said Act, which was not supplied to him, which amounts to deficiency of services. The complainant is, thus, a consumer vis-à-vis information sought on payment under the said Act.  

9.             Further the complainant has sought information under the Right to Information Act and as per section 5(2), the information has to be supplied within 30 working days from the date of receipt of the application. Since the requisite information has not been supplied nor any reply to that effect has been given to the complainant. Further the complainant has argued that he has claimed compensation only as he is alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, as such his complaint is maintainable against the OPs.

10.            In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OP to pay to the complainant a consolidated amount of compensation of Rs.10,000/-  for mental tension, agony and harassment as well as litigation expenses.

11.            The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases.

12.            This order  be complied with within a period of sixty days of its communication. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records.

                                Pronounced.

 

                                August 3, 2022.

 

            (Sarita Garg)                           (Jot Naranjan Singh Gill)

                 Member                                          President