Orissa

Kandhamal

CC/66/2024

Gokul Bihari Panigrahi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri P.C.Das, PIO cum ADP watershed - Opp.Party(s)

16 Jul 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMAR DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
AT-NEAR COLLECTORATE OFFICE,PHULBANI
 
Complaint Case No. CC/66/2024
( Date of Filing : 27 Mar 2024 )
 
1. Gokul Bihari Panigrahi
S/O- Radha Mohan Panigrahi, AT/PO- Bandhagada, PS- Phiringia,762011 DIST- Kandhamal
Kandhamal
Odisha
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Sri P.C.Das, PIO cum ADP watershed
Phulbani,, Near RTO Office Phulbani DIST- Kandhamal
Kandhamal
Odisha
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Sri Purna Chandra Mishra PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. Sri Sudhakar senapothi MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 16 Jul 2024
Final Order / Judgement

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KANDHAMAL, PHULBANI

C.C.NO. 66 OF 2024

                                        

                      Date of Filing: 27.03.2024

          Date of Order: 16.07.2024

Gokul Bihari Panigrahi,

S/O Radha Mohan Panigrahi

At/PO-Bandhagada

PS-Phiringia-762011

District- Kandhamal                               ………………….. Complainant

 

Versus.

 

          Sri P.C.Das,

          PIO-cum-APD Watershed, Phulbani

          Near RTO Office, Phulbani

District-Kandhamal                            ..………….….. Opposite Party.

 

Present: Sri Purna Chandra Mishra        - President.

Sri Sudhakar Senapothi                                     - Member.

For the Complainant: Self

For O.P.                    : Self

 

JUDGEMENT

Mr. Purna Chandra Mishra, President

          Complainant Gokul Bihari Panigrahi has filed this case u/s 35 of the CP Act-2019 alleging deficiency in service and harassment on the part of Opposite Party for not supplying him the required information in spite of payment of the required fee and praying therein for direction to the Opposite Party to provide him with the required information and to pay cost and compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/-.

 

  1. Brief fact leading to the case is that the complainant had applied for some information under the provisions of RTI Act to the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party intimated the complainant to pay a sum of Rs. 26/- for supply of the required information. But, the information was not supplied in spite of the payment of the fees for which he has filed this case before this Commission for the reliefs as discussed above.
  2. Notice was duly served on the Opposite Party. But, the Opposite Party failed to appear for which he was set exparte vide order date 11.06.2024.
  3. The complainant in support of the case has filed copy of letter No. 3437 dt. 28.11.2017 of the office of Project Director, Watershed Project, Kandhamal, Phulbani, copy of the money receipt No. 519778 issued by the Project Director, Watershed Projects, Kandhamal and his evidence in shape of affidavit.
  4. The only point for adjudication is whether the Opposite Party is liable for causing deficiency in service or not?

On perusal of record, it is seen that notice has been duly served on the Opposite Party through the peon book of this office. As he did not appear or challenge the allegations raised against him, it is deemed to have been admitted by him.

  1.  On perusal of record, it is further seen that the complainant has filed a copy of letter No. 3437 dt. 28.11.2017 in which, the complainant has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 26/- towards the cost of RTI application to be supplied to him. The complainant has also filed the copy of money receipt No. 519778 dt. 08.12.2017 towards deposit of the RTI Fees as directed by the Opposite Party. Besides, the complainant has filed his evidence in shape of affidavit which corroborates the whole complain of the complainant. So, it is crystal clear from the documents filed by the complainant and evidence adduced by him and from the silence of the Opposite Party that the required information has not been supplied to him in spite of the payment made to the Opposite Party as per the demand note issued to him for supply of the information. Non-supply of the required information amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.
  2. As a case of deficiency in service coupled with harassment is made out against the Opposite Party and he is liable to compensate the complainant for the loss and harassment sustained by him and hence the order.

 

O R D E R

 

The complaint petition is allowed expartee against the Opposite Party. The Opposite party is made liable for causing deficiency in service and harassment to the complainant. The Opposite Party is directed to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/- (Twenty-five Thousand) to the complainant towards deficiency in service with interest @ 12% from the date of repudiation till it is actually paid to the complainant. The Opposite Party is further directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- (Five Thousand) towards cost of litigation. The order is to be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which interest @ 12% shall be charged on the amount awarded by the Commission.

 

I Agree                                                    Computerized & corrected by me.

        

MEMBER                                                            PRESIDENT

Pronounced in the open Commission today on this 16th day of July 2024.

 

         MEMBER                                                             PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Sri Purna Chandra Mishra]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Sri Sudhakar senapothi]
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.