BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM RAICHUR.

COMPLAINT NO. (DCFR) CC.18/2012

THIS THE  25^th DAY OF JUNE 2012.

P R E S E N T

1.     Sri. Pampapathi B.sc.B.Lib. LLB                                        PRESIDENT.

2.    Sri. Gururaj, B.com.LLB. (Spl)                                             MEMBER.

3.    Smt. Pratibha Rani Hiremath,M.A. (Sanskrit)                   MEMBER      

       *****

COMPLAINANT            :-              Sharanappa S/o. Hampanna, Age: 50 years, Occ;

                                                            Agriculture, R/o. Post Ramtnal 584 143 Tq.                                                                      Sindhanur, Dist: Raichur.

//VERSUS//

OPPOSITE PARTY            :-         Panchayat Development Officer/Secretary, Gram

                                                            Panchayat Ramthnal, Tq: Sindhanur, Dist: Raichur.

CLAIM                                  :-         For to direct the opposite to pay an amount of Rs.                                                            20,000/- as a compensation, Rs. 10,000/- as a                                                                  mental harassment and Rs. 10,000/- cost of the                                                                 litigation and direction to issue all information as                                                      sought under the applications.

Date of institution  :-         03-03-12.

Notice served           :-         09-04-12.                               

Date of disposal       :-         25-06-12.

Complainant represented in Person.

Opposite represented by D.G.P.

***

            This case coming for final disposal before us, the Forum on considering the entire material and evidence placed on record by the parties passed the following.

JUDGEMENT

By Sri. Gururaj,  Member:-

            This is a complaint filed by the complainant Sharanappa against Opposite Panchayat Development Officer/Secretary, Sindhanoor, Dist: Raichur U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to direct the opposite to pay an amount of Rs. 20,000/- as a compensation, Rs. 10,000/- as a mental harassment and Rs. 10,000/- cost of the litigation and direction to issue all information as sought under the applications.

2.         Earlier the complainant has made in all five opponents out of which he has restricted his claim only against opposite No-5 and sought for dismissal of the claim against opposite Nos. 1 to 4, accordingly through order sheet dt. 15-03-2012 claim against opposite Nos. 1 to 4 dismissed and issued notice against opposite No-5, hence he is only the contesting party in the present case.

3.         The brief facts of the complainant case are that, the complainant has moved five applications U/section 6(1) & 7(1) of Right To Information Act 2005 before the opposite under different dates as under:

But the Respondent has not given the information sought by the complainant as above, even in spite of reminder letter dt. 09-11-2011, 05-12-2011, 15-12-2011, 29-12-2011, 06-01-2012 and 04-02-2012. Hence, he has filed the present complaint seeking the relief as prayed in the prayer column.

4.         After service of the notice, the opposite No-5 appeared through his counsel and filed written version as under ;

            1.         In respect of complainant application No-1 as mentioned at Sl.No-1 in the above Table regarding Certified copy of consent letter about gift/purchase pertaining to 6 feet land in Sy.no. 16/B belongs to one Sharanappa S/o. Hampanna of Ramthnal village from 01-06-2008 to 30-06-2011 is concerned, he has contended that, out of 4 acre in land Sy.No. 16/P1/B belongs to one Sharanappa S/o. Shankergouda of Ramthnal village, the 3 gunta land has been taken through registered gift deed document No. 2092/2008-09 dt. 28-06-2008 and constructed the Gram Panchayat Building of Ramthnal village. However all these informations have been sought by the complainant earlier to 18-08-2011 on 02-12-2010, 23-03-2011 and accordingly we have provided the information and closed the matter vide Commission Case No. KIC 1112 PTN/2010-11 further he has contended that, the complainant is seeking the information repeatedly for the same information by twisting the matter. The clarification regarding gift of the land is nothing and no land has been purchased or taken as a gift except 3 gunta land as stated supra.

            2.         Regarding the second application as mentioned at Sl.No-2 in the above Table the opposite has contended that, he has written letter dt. 09-01-2012 through RPAD No. 61916086TN and requested for to pay the fees accordingly the complainant has paid on 14-02-2012 and thereafter the in formation has been provided in respect of (1) work sanction order No. Gram Panchayat Ramthnal ¸ÀégÀ 2008/ 09/01/2011-12 ¢. 18-05-2011, (2) Fixed amount as Rs. 1,98,526/-, (3) completion of work, and (4) Certified copy of estimation letter has been given in this regard.

            3.         In respect of application regarding information sought at Sl.No-3 in the above said table, the opposite has contended that, he has given a letter to the complainant on 09-01-2012 vide RPAD No. 61916086 and asked him to make to pay the restricted fee and accordingly he has paid on 14-02-2012 and thereafter the Gram Panchyat Elected Members list has been given to the complainant.

            4.         In respect of information sought at Sl.No. 4 mentioned under Table the opposite contended that, he has written a letter on 09-01-2012 to make the payment of prescribed fee and accordingly the complainant has paid on 14-02-2012 and thereafter xerox copy of the cheque regarding tax is concerned are issued.

            5.         In respect of information mentioned at Sl.No.5 in the above Table the opposite has written letter dt. 09-01-2012 vide postal RPAD No. 61916086 and asked for to make the payment accordingly,  the complainant has paid the amount on 14-02-2012 and accordingly, he has issued the attendance of Officer who worked as Gram Panchayat Secretary from 01-04-2010 to 31-03-2011.

Further, he has contended that, under the above circumstances, there is no deficiency on their part and since he working in two places as a PDO and it was an end of the financial year, implementation of planning and maintaining of the account work was made, a little delay but all the informations have been provided as sought by the complainant. Hence the complaint may be closed by condoning the delay in providing the information.

5.         In-view of the pleadings of the complaint and evidence placed before this Forum. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that:

1.            Whether the complainant proves that, he moved an application under Right to Information Act 2005 for to get the necessary documents by the opposite and opposite inspite of several reminders he fails to issue the same and found guilty under deficiency in its service.?

       2. Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in the complaint.

       3. What order?

6.         Our findings on the above points are as under:-

            (1)       In the affirmative.

            (2)       As discussed in the body of this judgement and as sated in the final                               order.

            (3)       In-view of the findings on Point Nos- 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the                              final order for the following :

REASONS

POINT NO.1 & 2:-

7.         To prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit-evidence of the complainant was filed, he was noted as PW-1. Documents Ex.P-1 Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-16 marked as per order sheet dt. 13-06-2012. Documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-16 are marked on behalf of opposite.

8.         The complainant in order to prove his case, he has filed 16 documents under Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-16 out of which (15) documents are applications filed under RTI Act and postal orders.  We have perused the documents filed by the complainant and it is very clear that, he has moved application before the opposite seeking the documents as prayed in the complaint. This fact would goes to show that, the complainant has sought the documents by paying prescribed fee through IPO and this itself would goes to show that, he has not provided the documents well within the prescribed period as alleged by the complainant in his complaint and the opposite in his written version at the foot end he has admitted that, there was a delay in submitting the documents, that itself clearly goes to show that, the opposite has failed to perform his duty and thereby deficiency in service is caused on his part. No doubt, he has given some explanation regarding delay but in order to prove the said delay he has not submitted any documents nor he has explained his delay to the complainant before issuing the documents as sought by the complainant under Right to Information Act. Further, it is worthwhile to note here that, the opposite has not explained his delay while giving the information to the opposite through letter dt. 28-10-2011 i.e, Ex.R-1. No doubt the opposite has provided information as sought by the complainant through Ex.P-2 to Ex.P-15 but it is very clear that, the such information have been provided and documents have been given to the complainant not well within the time prescribed under RTI Act and there was a delay of more than 5 to 6 months from the date of payment of the amount and as well as application applied for to get the information and documents. Under such circumstances the version of the opposite regarding delay caused in providing the information as sought by the complainant cannot be accepted as it is condonable.   

9.         Though the opposite has filed his written version except details about the providing of information and documents, he has not at all raised any objections regarding maintainability of the complaint either on jurisdiction point or limitation point. But however, in the interest of parties to the proceedings, more particularly for to opposite, now we have discussed whether the complainant is entitled to the relief’s as prayed in his complaint, through this Forum or not and this Forum has got jurisdiction to entertain such type of complaint or not, as the application field by the complainant for to seeking the relief under RTI Act, as it is an special Act to provide such relief and availability of specific provision U/sec. 7 of Karnataka Right To Information Act for to prefer on appeal before the competent authority in case of non issue of documents sought under the said Act. No doubt there is an appeal provision under RTI Act before separate authority, one who has failed to perform his duty, but section 11 of the Karnataka Right To Information Act does not have any over riding affect on the Consumer Protection Act 1986. Further, section 3 of the C.P. Act provides an additional remedy to file such complaint and seek the relief before the Consumer Fora, hence, the bar of jurisdiction U/sec. 10 of the KRTI Act is not applicable. In this regard, we have referred the ruling of our Hon’ble National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, New Delhi judgment in Revision Petition No. 1975 of 2005 dated 28-05-2009 of Dr. S.P. Tirumala Rao V/s. Municipal Commissioner, Mysore City Corporation. Wherein the Hon’ble National Commission has clearly held that, when the concerned officer has failed to make his duty under RTI Act then, the affected person can approach the Consumer Redressal Forum and sought the relief for the purpose of getting the compensation for his suffering. Further, it is clearly held that, when any one application filed under RTI Act by paying an amount then, that application would fall within the scope and ambit of section 2(1)(o) of C.P. Act. Here, in this case also the complainant has filed his applications against opposite through Ex.P-12 to Ex.P-16 by paying in all Rs. 80/- each under Ex.P-12(a) to Ex.P-16(a) for to get information/documents and same were supplied after lapse of delay about 5 to 6 months. The opposite is the service provider, but has failed to provide his service and thereby he has committed deficiency in service and same will comes under the ambit of section 2(1)(o) of C.P. Act. Hence, we have followed the dictum laid down under the above said judgment by the Hon’ble National Commission which is a case of Karnataka.

10.       That, in the above circumstances, though the opposite has requested for to condone the delay and to close the matter but we have rejected his claim as the delay was abnormal one we have considered the pleadings of the complainant and documents filed by him with affidavit-evidence and dictums laid down under the rulings of Hon’ble National Commission and we have come to the conclusion that, the complainant has proved his case against the opposite as there is an considerable delay in providing the information and documents and he proved the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite and thereby we answered Point No-1 in affirmative.

11.       As regards to the compensation is concerned, the claim of the complainant is excessive and exorbitant one. The complainant has not produced any documents to show that, he has suffered a loss to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- and suffered with mental harassment upto the tune of Rs. 10,000/-. Hence we have not accepted the claim of the complainant to that extent. Further, he has also claimed Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of the proceedings is also excessive one. Hence we have not accepted that quantum of amount claimed. However keeping in the mind about the deficiency in service committed by opposite is concerned and effort made by the complainant, we have come to the conclusion that, Rs. 10,000/- is the right amount for to grant global compensation to the complainant, hence we have awarded Rs. 10,000/- including cost of the petition, deficiency in service and compensation as sought under the complaint. Accordingly we answered Point No-2.

POINT NO.3:-

12.       In view of our findings on Point Nos-1 & 2 we proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

            The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed.

            The complainant is entitled to recover a total amount of Rs. 10,000/- from the opposite.

            Complainant also entitled to get interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on Rs. 10,000/- from the date of this complaint till realization of the full amount.

            Opposite is given one month time from the date of the judgment for making payment of the above said amount of Rs. 10,000/- with interest as stated above to the complainant.

            Intimate the parties accordingly.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 25-06-12)

Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath,                Sri. Gururaj                     Sri. Pampapathi,

           Member.                                            Member.                                 President,

District Consumer Forum Raichur.      District Consumer Forum Raichur.      District Consumer Forum Raichur.