Present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer <br /> Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date has been filed by Naresh Kumari wife of Krishan Kumar complainant against Union of India, through its Secretary, Department of Posts, New Delhi and Superintendent, Post Office, Kapurthala for seeking direction against<br /> -2-<br /> them to furnish the detailed particulars of the amount which was lying deposited in the name of her deceased father Sat Pal for various accounts and also for monetary compensation on account of deficiency in service.<br /> 2. Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is daughter of Sat Pal son of Saudagar Mal. He died on 2.2.2002. His mother Bhupinder Rani already expired on 22.1.2003. Both died intestate, as such, she and other daughters and son are the only legal heirs of their parents. She is, therefore, entitled to 1/5th share in the estate left by above said Sat Pal and Bhupinder Rani. It is also averred that Sat Pal was maintaining the account with the opposite parties. He has requested the opposite parties to furnish the detailed particulars regarding the amount lying in various accounts, but the same was not furnished. The opposite parties in connivance with her brother Harjinder Kumar wrongly and illegally either have paid the amount lying deposited in the name of Sat Pal to Harjinder Kumar or had concealed the same. It is, therefore, alleged that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in disclosing the particulars of the amount lying with them.<br /> 3. The opposite parties appeared and controverted the claim of the complainant by raising preliminary objection that the complainant is not a consumer of opposite parties, as such, the complaint is not maintainable. He has the remedy under THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005. It is denied that whether the complainant is daughter of Sat Pal deceased or Sat Pal had opened any account with them as no particulars of his account were furnished to the opposite parties. Therefore, the opposite parties <br /> -3-<br /> pleaded its inability to furnish the requisite information for want of full particulars of Sat Pal deceased and his alleged account with the opposite parties. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.<br /> 4. Since the opposite parties raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the complaint and also about the status of the complainant as a 'Consumer' , so it was considered expedient to hear arguments on preliminary objection.<br /> 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. The learned counsel for the complainant has urged before us that since the complainant is a 'Consumer' in respect of the accounts of her deceased father qua the opposite parties in respect of the amounts lying in deposit with the opposite parties, the complaint is maintainable and she has the right to seek the requisite information from the opposite parties <br /> 6. On the other hand, it has been counter argued by th learned counsel for the opposite parties that seeking the information about the particulars of the alleged amount of Sat Pal alleged deceased by the complainant from the opposite parties, does not constitute a deficiency in service unless he establishes the locus-stndi to maintain the complaint as a consumer under Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. More so no requisite information can be furnished unless the applicant is helpful to produce sufficient materials before it.<br /> 7. We have considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties. We find considerable, merits in the preliminary objection of the opposite parties. Section 2(d) of the Act ibid defines a<br /> -4-<br /> person as consumer who (ii) hires or avails of any services for consideration which has been paid or promised or partially paid and partially promised and includes any beneficiary of such service other than the person, hires or avails of the service for consideration paid or promised or partially paid and partly promised. In the instant case, the complainant Prespouses the accounts of her deceased father allegedly maintained by the opposite parties without furnishing the requisite information, as such, about his status about the account of the deceased lying with the opposite parties. As a matter of fact, the complainant seeks merely information about the account allegedly operated by his deceased father with the opposite parties and as such, this kind of information does not require the judicial adjudication under the Provision of Consumer Protection Act.<br /> 8. On the other hand the Parliament with its wisdom has come to the rescue of aggrieved public seeking information in respect of any record documents, memos, E-mail, Circulars from any public authority by enactment of THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005. The Public Authority like post office are under obligations under Section 4 of the Act ibid to maintain all its records duly catalogued and indexed in a manner and form which facilitates THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005.Under this Act and ensure that all records that are appropriate to be computerized are within a reasonable time and subject to availability of resources so that access to such records is facilitated and sub clause (ii) further enjoying upon every Public Authority to take steps in accordance with requirement of clause (b) of Sub Section (i) to provide as much information suo motu to public at regular intervals through various means of communication. The <br /> -5-<br /> complainant has also the right to move a request in writing under Section 6 of the Act ibid to obtain any information accompanying such fee may be prescribed to State Public Information Officer and the said request has to be disposed of under Section 7of the Act by the State Public Information Officer within 30 days of the receipt of the request. Further the said Public Officer Information officer has also been empowered under Section 18 of the Act ibid to receive and inquire into a complaint, his or her application who has been refused access to any information requested under this Act. Therefore, Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act cannot also be pressed into service in so far as the relief for seeking the information from a Public Authority in respect of public records is concerned. The complainant appears to have been ill-advised to knock at the Consumer Forum under the misconception of expeditious relief by ignoring the relevant provision of law under THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005. The complainant, therefore, neither becomes 'Consumer' nor there appears to be any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties within the purview of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> 9. In the ultimate analysis of our aforesaid discussion, we do not find any merit in the maintainability of the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Let certified copies of the judgment be sent to the parties through registered post free of costs without any delay. File be consigned to record room.<br /> <br /> DATED: SUSHMA HANDOO A.K. SHARMA<br /> 25.7.2007 MEMBER MEMBER