Adv.for the complainant- None.
Adv.for the Opp.Parties- None.
Date of filing of the case – 18.03.2014
Date of order of the case- 22.08.2014
JUDGMENT.
Sri P.Samantara,President.
In the matter of application u/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, filed by the complainant alleging deficiency in service against the O.Ps.
2. The facts of the case is that the complaint petitioner of Balangir ,Rameswarnagar has sought certain information and copies of documents under RTI Act 2005 from P.I.O and Under Secretary to Government Section-IV School & Mass Education Department and P.I.O & Under Secretary to Govt. RTI Cell,Scho0l and Mass Education Deptt. Bhubaneswar in payment statutory fees of Rs 10/- in shape of I.P.O.No.23F/597690 accompanied with the application dated 19.12.2013.
3. It is further averred the P.I.O,RTI Cell, Deptt. of School & Mass Education in his letter No.29315/SME dated 23.12.13 has received the application on dated 21.12.2013 by Regd.No.870/13. Accordingly the R.T.I cell has requested to the P.I.O Directorate of Elementary Education, Odisha and P.I.O. office of the District Education Officer, Balangir, to provide the information in respect of para-5 c I ii iii & vi under intimation to the complainant vide Memo No.29538/SME dated 27.12.2013 and in the said memo it has been requested to the complainant to deposit an amount of Rs 457/- for furnishment information in respect of questions under 1 cost of information- Rs 356/- for 178 pages postal charges-Rs 101/- (Speed post)-Total Rs 457/- and said the amount advised to deposit is inflatedly calculated for un-called for pages of documents & information and collected capriciously. The excess amount collected is Rs 246/- for 123 pages and the postal charges would have less than of Rs 101/- on the right number of pages sent, in right orderly manner. Thus the case praying for refund of money and any other relief that the forum deems fit.
4. The complainant placed reliance on application copy and subsequent copies of memos in photo copy under (Annexure 1-9) and affidavit.
5. On getting notice the O.P.1 and O.P.2 filed their version on dated 24.04.2014.
6. The O.P.1 contended the case is not maintainable since the provisions under RTI Act 2005 contemplates filing appeal before First Appellate Authority and the complainant not approached the authority and in surpass, same application liable to be rejected. In addition, the Section-25 and section-23 of the Right to Information does not provide to take shelter under Consumer Protection act 1986.
7. Again, the information has been supplied to the complainant within the stipulated time i.e within one month of receipt of the application. The information has been supplied to the applicant through speed post on dt.04.01.2014. Hence it does not attract any penalty.
8. Further, it is submitted the applicant in para-5 ( c) (v) had sought for information- “the copies of the entire note sheets and order from page-1 to last of relevant file No. IV SME/E(ii)-144/2012, accordingly the entire note sheets and the correspondence papers containing total 178 pages is provided with postal charges. So the charging excess amount is baseless, rather furnishment collection is right. On same question, the other submission is that the copy of the note sheet means, the copies of the note side of the concerned file and the copy of the order means the copies of the correspondence side in which is the mirror of the note side that means the orders issued as per the decision in the note side. Hence such dispatch does not amount to un-necessary documents as alleged. Relied photo copy of letter No.7619/SME,dt.15.04.2014.
9. The O.P.2 in his submission contended the application is not maintainable in view of provision made under section 21 and section-23 of RTI Act 2005. Further humbly submitted that Section-18 of the RTI Act provides for filing of complaint before the State Information Commission, against the order of the public Information Officer. Moreover Section-19 of the Act provides for filing of First Appeal before the First Appellate Authority and Second Appeal before the State Information Commission. The complaint was received in RTI cell on 21.12.2013. Same application was forwarded to the concerned PIO, Section-IV as the information was not available with the RTI cell and communicated to the complainant in Memo No.29316 dated 23.12.2013. In view of aforementioned provisions containment and compliance of information, no liability arises rather the case is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
10. Heard the extensive submission of the petitioner and gone through the versions of O.Ps as submitted and perused the documents on record.
11. Hearing the submissions, we found the section 2 1 o of the Consumer Protection Act, clearly covers the process of purveying information. The relevant part is reproduced- service means service of any description which is made available to potential or the Purveying of news or other Information personal service. Meaning of the word purveying - to provide. Hence based on the above mentioned clause, the complainant who has paid Rs 10/- + Rs 457/ RTI fees is a consumer under the C.P. Act.
12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Fair Air Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs N.K. Modi III 1996 CPJ 1 SC- in which it has held- it must be held that provisions of the Act are to be construed widely to give effect to the object and purpose of the Act. It is seen that Section-3 envisages that the provisions of the Act are in addition to and are not in derogation of any other law in force.
13. Similarly no order has been passed by any authority and in absence of same section 21 and 23 of RTI Act is not attracted and found infractuous for the case.
14. The complainant s core grouse, that the authority has collected Rs 246/- in excess by giving 123 pages of correspondence, which is uncalled for and unwanted on the same issue, the O.P.1 on its pleadings in para-10 explained- The copy of the note sheet means the copies of the note side of the concerned file and the copy of the order means the copies of the correspondence side in which is the mirror of the note side that means the orders issued as per the decision in the note side. Hence same are not un-necessary documents have been provided to the applicant .
15. On the other hand the complainant vehemently contended in submitting that in application Para-iv- vide point No.-5 c v I have asked to provide the copies of the entire Note sheets and Order from page-1 to last of the file No. IV-SME/E II-144/2012 which means the order recorded by the final Authority therein Note sheet. The supply about the copies of the correspondence side of the file is your self-styled misinterpretation etc. I have never stated about supply of copies of the correspondence side in the particular point in which information called for.
16. It is pertinent to state that, 142 pages of copies of documents vide Para 5 c v have been furnished which includes 19 pages of note sheets and 123 pages of correspondence. Only the Note sheets of 19 pages are related to the information asked for by me and the correspondences of 123 pages are unwanted, the excess cost of which is Rs 246/-.
17. Having gone through the Odisha records Manual 1964 we considerably allow the points made by the complainant on note sheet and correspondence is prima-facie both a fact and law and the stand is substantiative in view of the aforesaid circumstance and the fault imperfection nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by is fall short within the definition of section 2 g of the Act and the opposite parties are liable for the deficiency committed.
ORDER.
Consequence upon the above matrix of facts, it is directed the O.Ps are jointly and severally liable to refund the amount of Rs 246/- Rupees two hundred forty six only instantly to the complaint petitioner, besides have to pay an amount of Rs 1000/-Rupees One thousand each as compensation towards the loss, harassment & mental agony sustained and Rs 500/- Rupees five hundred each, towards litigation expenses incurred, within 30 days of this order, failing which the entire amount will carry interest 12% per annum from the date of application till realization of payment without fail.
(ii) The petitioner is directed to apply afresh for the information that yet not supplied with specific content.
ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST 2014.
Sd/- Sd/-
(S.Rath) ( P.Samantara)
MEMBER. PRESIDENT.
