West Bengal

Kolkata-II(Central)

CC/228/2014

MR. SUBHABRATA BASU - Complainant(s)

Versus

SRI ANUP CHATTOPADHJYAY - Opp.Party(s)

LD. ADVOCATE

29 Sep 2014

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
KOLKATA UNIT - II.
8-B, NELLIE SENGUPTA SARANI, 7TH FLOOR,
KOLKATA-700087.
 
Complaint Case No. CC/228/2014
 
1. MR. SUBHABRATA BASU
187 NO ELIAS ROAD, P.S-KHARDAH, KOLKATA-700058.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. SRI ANUP CHATTOPADHJYAY
T.P & T.E DTE, TRANSPORT DEPPT, GOVT. OF W.B, PODDAR COURT , P.S-BOWBAZAR, KOLKATA-700001.
2. THE 1ST APPELIATE AUTHORITY
18 R.N. MUKHERJEE ROAD, KOLKATA-700001, P.S- HARE STREET.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Bipin Mukhopadhyay PRESIDENT
 HON'ABLE MR. Ashok Kumar Chanda MEMBER
 HON'ABLE MRS. Sangita Paul MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:LD. ADVOCATE, Advocate
For the Opp. Party:
OPs are present.
 
ORDER

This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

           Complainant by filing this complaint submitted that complainant applied to SPIO of TP and TE, Dte., Transport Department, Government of West Bengal, Poddar Court under RTI Act on 29-11-2003 for certain information and as per RTI Act OP is bound to given reply within 30 days but said OP SPIO did not provide the information at all within the time limit and till date no information is received by the complainant though for the purpose of information he submitted Rs.10/- as application fee for desired information but OP has not applied it for which for deficiency in service complainant has filed this complaint for relief.

          On the other hand OP by filing written statement submitted that OP served the information to the complainant as early as possible and OP had no intentional laches to furnish the information as sought by the complainant and in the said written objection OP has prayed for dismissal of the case.

Decision with Reasons

After hearing the Ld. Lawyers of both the parties and also considering the judgment of the State Commission passed in SC Case No.RP/08/2013 passed on 13-08-2013 it is found that Hon’ble State Commission has already confirmed that complainant cannot be considered to be a consumer under the C.P. Act since there is a remedy available for him to approach the Appellate Authority u/s.19 of the RTI Act, 2005.  Moreover, in this case it is found that OP sent a reply by speed post.  But no receipt is produced, whatever it may be, we have gathered that this fellow complainant has become a Forum barred and practically in the present case we find that the present complainant is not entitled to get any relief in view of the fact the said reply was sent to the complainant by the OP and the said letter was not returned to the office of the OP.  So, invariably complainant get such reply and for which this complaint bears no merit in the eye of law and in the result, the case succeeds.

Hence,

Ordered

That the case be and the same is dismissed against the OP but without any cost.

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Bipin Mukhopadhyay]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'ABLE MR. Ashok Kumar Chanda]
MEMBER
 
[HON'ABLE MRS. Sangita Paul]
MEMBER

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.