IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli<br /> B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - President <br /> <br /> <br /> 2. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 417/09 DATED 30.11.2009<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant K.Narasimhaiaha, <br /> S/o Late N.Kariyanna, R/at No.484/2A, 6th Cross, Veenesheshanna Road, K.R.Mohalla, Mysore.<br /> <br /> (By Smt. B.Radha, Advocate)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Party The Right to Information Officer, Addl. Registrar of Registration of Societies, Office of the Asst. Registrar of Societies, Palace Office Building, Mysore.<br /> <br /> (EXPARTE)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 09.11.2009<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : EXPARTE<br /> Date of order : 30-11-2009<br /> Duration of Proceeding : -<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, the complainant has filed the complaint, seeking direction to the opposite party to furnish information as per the application, that was submitted under Right to Information Act dated 16.09.2009.<br /> <br /> 2. Amongst several facts, in the complaint, it is stated that, by the application dated 16.09.2009 under the provisions of Right to Information Act, the complainant had sought certain information and had paid the fees of Rs.10/- through postal order. The opposite party in spite of lapse of the prescribed period has not furnished the information. Hence, it is prayed to allow the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In spite of service of the notice, the opposite party has remained exparte.<br /> <br /> 4. To prove the facts alleged in the complaint, the complainant has filed his affidavit and certain documents are produced. We have heard the arguments of the learned advocate for complainant and perused the records.<br /> <br /> 5. Now, point that we have to consider, whether the complainant has proved any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and that he is entitled to the reliefs sought?<br /> <br /> 6. For the following reasons, our finding is in affirmative.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 7. Point no. 1:- From the documents on record, it is established that, the complainant had submitted an application under Right to Information Act to the opposite party along with fees, seeking information stated therein. That application has been duly received by the opposite party. In spite of lapse of the prescribed period under the Act, opposite party has not furnished the information and these facts are stated by the complainant in the affidavit. The opposite party in spite of service of the notice of the complaint, has not appeared before the Forum and denied or disputed the case of the complainant. Hence, prima-facie of the complainant has made out, deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Accordingly, we pas the following order:- <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The complaint is allowed.<br /> 2. The opposite party is hereby directed to furnish the information sought by the complainant in the application dated 16.09.2009, within a month from the date of this order.<br /> 3. There is no order as to costs.<br /> 4. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 30th November 2009)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />