Karnataka

Bangalore 1st & Rural Additional

1815/2011

Dinesh Kallahalli - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sanjana Mohan - Opp.Party(s)

10 Oct 2011

ORDER

BEFORE THE BENGALURU RURAL AND URBAN I ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, I FLOOR, BMTC, B BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR, BENGALURU-27
 
Complaint Case No. 1815/2011
( Date of Filing : 28 Sep 2011 )
 
1. Dinesh Kallahalli
Ramanagaram
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Sanjana Mohan
Bangalore
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 10 Oct 2011
Final Order / Judgement

Date of Filing:28/09/2011

        Date of Order:30/11/2011

BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE -  20

 

Dated:  30th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2011

PRESENT

SRI.H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO,B.SC.,B.L., PRESIDENT

SRI.KESHAV RAO PATIL, B.COM., M.A., LL.B., PGDPR, MEMBER

SMT.NIVEDITHA .J, B.SC.,LLB., MEMBER

 

COMPLAINT NO.1815 OF 2011

Dinesh Kalahalli,

Journalist, Kalahalli Post,

Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagaram District.                           ….  Complainant.

V/s

 

Karnataka State Jungle Lodges & Resorts,

Khanija Bhavan, Ground Floor,

Race Course Road, Bangalore.

Rep. by its Executive Director

Sri. Sanjay Mohan.                                                                      …. Opposite Party.

 

BY SRI. H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT

 

-: ORDER:-

 

The brief antecedents that led to the filing of the complainant U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking appropriate relief, are necessary:-

          On 07.02.2007 by paying the relevant charges the complainant has sought as Under RTI Act the information regarding the expenditure and maintenance of all the vehicles used by Sri.R.K.Singh, I.F.S., the maintenance of all camps bills of Sri.R.K. Singh, IFS, when the said Sri.R.K. Singh went to foreign country with whose travel agency he contacted; expenditure made by him towards mobile; the sale receipt of laptop, mobile the sale materials expenditures and the documents in this regard.  Even then the opposite party has not given the said information.  An appeal was also filed on 10.06.2011 before Managing Director of Karnataka Forest Department.  Even then it has not been furnished.  Hence the complaint.

2.       In brief the version of the opposite party are:-

          For the action or inaction the complainant has to approach the appellate authority under the RTI Act and he cannot approach this Forum.  He cannot be a consumer. 

3.       To substantiate their respective cases the parties have filed their respective affidavits.  The arguments were heard.

 

4.       The points that arise for our consideration are:-

 

:- POINTS:-

  1. Whether there is any deficiency in service?

 

  1. What Order?

 

5.      Our findings are:-

Point (A) & (B):  As per the final Order

                             for the following:- 

 

-:REASONS:-

Point A & B:-

6.       Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the affidavits and documents on record, it is an admitted fact that on 06.07.2010 by paying Rs.10/- to the opposite party as Under Section 6(1)7(1) of the RTI Act 2005 the complainant has sought information with respect to the Executive Director Sri.R.K.Singh, I.F.S., regarding the expenditure and maintenance of all the vehicles used by Sri.R.K.Singh, I.F.S., the maintenance of all camps bills of Sri.R.K. Singh, IFS, when the said Sri.R.K. Singh went to foreign country with whose travel agency he contacted; expenditure made by him towards mobile; the sale receipt of laptop, and this has not been submitted to the complainant till date by the opposite party.

 

7.       Merely an alternative remedy is available under the RTI Act; it does not mean the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is taken out or barred as Under Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act.  It is for the complainant to select the Forum which he chose the opposite party cannot thrust it on the complainant.  Hence under these circumstances the contention of the opposite party is nothing but an unfair trade practice as the opposite party has received the money from the complainant for providing the services it has not provided.  Hence we hold the above points accordingly and proceed to pass the following:-

 

 

-: ORDER:-

  1. The Complaint is Allowed-in-part.
  2. The opposite party is directed to furnish all the information sought for by the complainant in the application dated: 07.02.2011 within 30 days from the date of this order.
  3. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as costs of this litigation to the complainant.
  4. The opposite party is directed to comply the above said order as ordered at serial Nos.2 and 3 above and submit the compliance report to this Forum with necessary documents within 45 days from the date of this order.

5. Return the extra sets filed by the parties to the concerned as under Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer’s Protection Regulation 2005.

6.       Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs, immediately.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 30th Day of November 2011)

 

 
MEMBER                                    MEMBER                                     PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 

 

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.