Date of filing : 07-03-2012
Date of order : 16-08-2012
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.62/2012
Dated this, the 16th day of August 2012
PRESENT
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER
SMT. K.G.BEENA : MEMBER
Areef.P.M, S/o. Moideen, } Complainant
R/at.K.M.C No. XXXII/127,
Guthu Road, Adkathbail, Kasaragod.
(Adv.Shajid Kammadam, Kasaragod)
State Public Information Officer, } Opposite party
Taluk Office, Kasaragod.
(In Person)
O R D E R
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT
The Grievance of the complainant is that the opposite party did not supply him the information in lieu of the application filed by him U/s. 6 (1) of the Right to Information Act on 11-01-2012 seeking some specific documents from opposite party. According to him they ought to have given the reply within 30 days Under Sec.7 (1) of the Right to Information Act. Hence the complaint.
2. According to opposite party the complainant filed application under the Right to Information Act requesting to furnish certain information pertaining to land assignment in Nekraje village of the Taluk vide file No.LA 232/96/Nekraje of Special Tahsildar (LA) Kasaragod. On verification at the record room it was not available. Actually the file was transferred from the office of the special Tahsildar (LA) which was abolished on 31-10-1998. But the file LA 232/96/Nekraja is not transferred by the Special Tahsildar (LA) Kasaragod. So the information requested by the complainant could not be issued. The complainant has not filed any appeal to the Appellate Authority constituted under the Right to Information Act and the complainant is not a consumer and the dispute mentioned here in is not a consumer dispute and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
3. Both sides heard.
4. The points arises for consideration are:
1. Whether the complaint is maintainable before the Forum?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?
3. What is the order as to relief & costs?
5. Issue No.1. Maintainability of complaint.
The contention of opposite party is that complainant is not a consumer and the dispute involved herein is not a consumer dispute and therefore the complaint is not maintainable before the Forum.
6. But the said contention is not sustainable in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the case of Dr.S.P.Thirumala Rao V Mysore City Municipal Corporation reported in III 2012 CPJ 72 (NC). In that case the Hon’ble Justice R.K. Batta, the Presiding Member while discussing about the maintainability of a complaint against the non-supplying the information under the Karnataka Right to Information Act 2002 has held that in view of Sec.3 of the Consumer Protection Act which provides an additional remedy, and the fact that applicant has to pay fee for seeking information the applicant would fall within the scope and ambit of Sec 2(1) (o) of Consumer Protection Act which provides service of any description which is made available to potential users, which include purveying of news or supplying of other information would comes under the purview of Consumer Protection Act.
7. The facts and circumstances of the said case are squarely applicable to the instant case also and therefore this issue is found against opposite party and we hold that complainant who sought information under the RTI Act 2005 after paying the requisite fee is a consumer and the dispute is a consumer dispute and therefore the complaint is maintainable before the Forum.
8. Point No.2. Deficiency in service.
Admittedly the opposite party could not supply the information sought by the complainant. According to them the file pertaining to the information sought were not transferred to them from the office of the Special Tahsildar (LA) which was abolished on 31-10-1998. The non-transferring of the particular file on the part of authorities is definitely constitute deficiency in service. The complainant shall in no way can be a looser out of that and those who are responsible for the same must pay for it.
9. The Governmental authorities often forgets the fact that in our country the sovereignty vests with the people and the government officials are the servants of the people and not their masters. They must be sub servient to the people. It can be realised from the contention of the opposite party that the mishandling of the requisite documents are the reason for the non-availability of the records with them in which the necessary information is sought. They were duty bound to keep those records. The non-availability of the same would definitely cause hardships to it’s beneficiaries. The non-supply of the required information therefore constitute deficiency in service.
10. Point No.(iii) Relief & costs
Though the complainant claimed `25000/- as compensation he did not produce any evidence to show the loss he sustained due to the non-supply of the required information. Therefore we are of the view that `5000/- would be sufficient to redress the grievance of the complaint.
In the result, complaint is allowed and opposite party is directed to pay a compensation of `5000/- with a cost of `2000/-. Time for compliance is limited to 30 days from the date of receipt of copies of the order.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pj/
