| Final Order / Judgement | CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – X GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area (Behind Qutub Hotel) New Delhi – 110016 Case No.205/2024 RATAN DAS ADD.:- B-1248, GAUTAMPURI PHASE 2, BADARPUR NEW DELHI 110076 P.S. :- BADARPUR SOUTH-EAST DELHI …..COMPLAINANT Vs. - SANITATION SUPERINTENDENT
OFFICE OF SANITATION SUPERINTENDENT DEPTT. OF ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT SERVICES DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, CENTRAL ZONE, (OFFICE OF THE D.C. CENTRAL ZONE) M.C.D. LAJPAT NAGAR, NEW DELHI 110024. …..OPPOSITE PARTY NO.1 - DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF M.C.D.,
OFFICE OF D.C. CENTRAL ZONE DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, LAJPAT NAGAR, NEW DELHI 110024. …..OPPOSITE PARTY NO.2 Date of Institution-30.05.2024 Date of Order- 30.08.2024 O R D E R DR. RAJENDER DHAR-MEMBER - The complainant has filed consumer complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and has prayed for directions to be issued to OP to provide information under Right To Information Act, 2005.
- Complainant has stated that on 01.12.2023 he had filed an application under RTI Act, 2005 in the office of Commissioner M.C.D., New Delhi in which he had sought information on 5 issues for which he had paid an amount of Rs.10/- by way of postal order as required under RTI Act, 2005. He enclosed 20 other pages with the complaint for which he had paid Rs.50/- as photocopying charges.
- Complainant has further stated that vide order dated 05.12.2024 his application was sent to Asstt. Commissioner Central Zone and vide letter dated 01.01.2024 he received the desired information, complainant has further stated in Para 5 of his complaint that although he received the information but no information has been provided to him by M.C.D. on issue no. 1 to 5 and no information regarding inspection has been provided as requested by the complainant. By doing so, the M.C.D. has violated Section 3 of the RTI Act, 2005. Copy of order dated 05.12.2024 is enclosed.
- Complainant has further stated that M.C.D. has since not furnished any information thereby they have not complied with Section 5(3) and 7 (4) of RTIAct, 2005. Hence, M.C.D. has deliberately not done their work in a proper manner. Complainant has also filed an application dated 01.08.2024 to OP intimating that he has filed a complaint against OP under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Copy of the application dated 01.08.2024 is enclosed.
- Complainant has further stated that despite paying the amount the required information under RTI Act, no information has been received from OP.
- Complainant has further stated that his complaint is maintainable under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 since he is a consumer under Section 2(7) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019. He has also mentioned Section 100 of Consumer Protection Act which states that “provision of Consumer Protection Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force”. Complainant has also filed a judgment of District Consumer Forum Bikaner, Rajasthan dated 22.06.2022.
- In the end complainant has prayed that the direction be issued to OP1 to provide the required information under RTI Act, 2005to the complainant as per his application dated 01.12.2024. He has also prayed for Rs.50,000/- each from OP1 and OP2 for undergoing mental harassment and other problems, an amount of Rs.15.,000/- each from OP1 and OP2 towards legal expenditure and also for imposing fine against OP for unfair trade practice.
- Complainant appeared on VC on 23.08.2024 for arguments on maintainability of his complaint. Arguments were heard and matter was kept reserved for order on maintainability.
- After perusing the documents filed by the complainant on record, it is seen that he had sought some information from OPs under RTI Act, 2005 and as stated by the complainant that some information was provided to him but information on issues 1 to 5 was not provided including information regarding carrying out the inspection was also not provided by OP. Complainant has complied with a procedural formalities under the Provisions of RTI Act, 2005 i.e. deposited the requisite fee and also annexed all required documents for which he also paid Rs.50/-. Despite completion of all formalities the required information was not provided by the M.C.D./OPs.
- Complainant has also relied upon the judgment of District Consumer Forum Bikaner, Rajasthan dated 22.06.2022.
- This Commission has carefully considered the contents of the application of the complainant and it is seen that the complainant is not a Consumer under Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which defines the Consumer as “a person who buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose”
Applying the definition of consumer in the present case it is seen that the complainant had filed an application under RTI Act, 2005 wherein he sought information from OPs, partly he received the required information from the OPs and some information as per the complainant’s own complaint, he had not been provided to him by the OPs under RTI Act, 2005. As far as payment of fee of Rs.10/- is concerned this amount is only for registration for an application as provided under RTI Act, 2005 and not as consideration amount paid for purchase of any goods or services. - It is also observed by the Commission that in case the complainant did not receive the complete information from OPs under RTI Act, 2005 he should have filed an appeal before the notified First Appellate Authority in M.C.D. wherein his grievance/complaint related to incomplete information could have been addressed. In case the complainant was still dissatisfied he had further option of filing second appeal before the Chief Information Commissioner as provided under RTI Act, 2005 but the complainant did not do so for the reasons best known to him, rather he preferred to file a complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
- It is also seen that although, Section 100 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 provides that- “Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.” The criteria of fulfilling the requirements as a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 have to be fully met by the complainant.
- It is further observed that although Section 100 permits that Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is an additional provision but this is a case wherein the complainant was not satisfied by the information provided by OPs under RTI Act, 2005 and the said Act i.e. RTI Act, 2005 itself has an internal provision of First Appellate Authority and also that of second Appellate Authority i.e. Chief Information Commissioner. Complainant has not mentioned anything/ any reason for not filing an appeal before the First Appellate Authority as provided under the Provisions of RTI Act, 2005.
- Hence, the present complaint is not maintainable on account of two reasons, one that the complainant is not a consumer under Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and the second is that the complainant has an alternate efficacious remedy under RTI Act, 2005 itself which he has failed to avail and no reason has been furnished for the same. The complaint is not maintainable under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Hence, the present complaint is dismissed.
- File consigned to record room.
| |
