Per Shri S.R. Khanzode – Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member:

      Heard Mr.M.H. Oak, Advocate for the Appellant.

     This appeal takes an exception to an order passed in Consumer Complaint No.166/2010, Prashant Shivaji Kanade V/s. Shri Amit Deshmukh, by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Satara, (in short ‘Forum Below’). 

     Admittedly, there is a loan transaction between the Appellant/Org. Complainant and Respondent/Opposite Party.  It is the grievance of the Complainant that it had applied under the right to information Act to the Respondent to give account extract of old loan account.  Instead of giving said information, an information as to the existing loan account was given and therefore, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent/Opposite Party the consumer complaint was filed.  The Forum below pleased to dismiss the complaint and hence, original Complainant has filed this appeal.

     Mr.Oak, Ld. Advocate for the Appellant submitted that, in view of section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the additional reliefs are sought.  No doubt, it is so, but, once the Appellant/Original Complainant has elected to choose a particular remedy under provisions of right to information Act and he has pursued the same and if he is not satisfied with the information given, as per the said Act he can seek relief by filing an appeal.  Under the circumstances, there cannot be any deficiency in service as alleged by the Appellant.  Forum below has rightly dismissed the complaint.  We find no reason to take different view than what has been taken by the Forum below.  Thus, finding the appeal devoid of any substance, we pass the following order:

O  R  D  E  R

     (i)       Appeal stands dismissed in limine.

    (ii)       No order as to costs.