Date of filing : 10-01-2012
Date of order ; 06-08-2012
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.10/2012
Dated this, the 6th day of August 2012
PRESENT
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER
SMT. K.G.BEENA : MEMBER
Safiya.K.M, D/o.K.M.Muhammad, } Complainant
House maker, Next to Muhayudhin Juma Masjid,
Neerchal in Bela Village, Kasaragod Taluk & Dist.
(Adv. Shajd Kammadam, Kasaragod)
State Public Information Officer, } Opposite party
Kumbla Police Station, Kasaragod.
(In Person)
O R D E R
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT
The grievance of the complainant in brief is that the opposite party did not furnish the information sought under Section 6(1) of Right to Information Act. Hence the complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.
2. According to opposite party the application was received on22-10-2011 and the copies of the documents sought in the application was taken and that was informed the applicant. But neither the applicant nor he relatives came to the police station for receiving the documents. On 8-2-2012 the applicant was contacted from her house, but it was told that the documents will be received after consulting their lawyer. But till 23-02-2012 it was not received and therefore when again contacted on24-02-2012 it was told that their advocate instructed them not to collect from the station and therefore those documents were sent by registered post on 25-02-2012. The delay occurred is not willful. Hence there is no deficiency in service on their part.
3. On filing the version the complainant and opposite party heard. Documents produced on the side of complainant and marked as Exts A1 to A4. Both sides heard.
4. The issues to be considered are:
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?
2. Whether the complainant entitled for any compensation as claimed?
5. Point No.1:
Even according to opposite party the application as provided U/s 6(1) of Right Information Act 2005 was received by them on 22-10-2011. So as per Sec.7 of R.T.I Act the required information ought to have been furnished on or before 21-11-2011. But it was not furnished. Though opposite party in his version has stated that he informed about the preparation of copies of the documents to the complainant, no evidence adduced to prove that aspect. Hence it is not believable. Further it is only on 8-2-2012 opposite party contacted the applicant. That shows that only after receiving the notice from the Forum they contacted the complainant. However, it is further stated in the version that the copies of available documents were sent by registered post to the complainant on 25-02-2012. From the version it is crystal clear that opposite party has committed deficiency in the service rendered by him to the complainant. Hence this issue is answered against opposite party.
6. Point No.2:
The complainant has not adduced any evidence to show what are the losses she sustained and how the loss occurred due to the delay in furnishing the information she sought.
7. Therefore we do not find any reason to award any compensation to the complainant.
In the result, complaint is disposed with a direction to the opposite party furnish the information within the stipulated time in future. In the circumstances there is no order as to costs.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exts.
A1. Application for obtaining information under Right Information Act.
A2. Postal receipt.
A3. Postal acknowledgement card
A4. Copy of Role of public information officers
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pj/
