The complainant has come up with the instant petition of complaint before this forum with a prayer for passing an order for compensation and litigation cost against the OP on the principle ground that he (complainant) made an application under the provision of Right to Information Act, 2005 by paying requisite fees of Rs. 10/- before the OP in the matter of his Old Age Pension Scheme on 27-6-2012 as he did not get the said pension in spite of application for such pension made before the District Magistrate, Purba Medinipur on 23-09-2010. But the OP did not give him any answer till the date of filing this case on 02-01-2014.
The OP has contested the case by filing written version wherein all the material allegations made in the petition of complaint have been denied. It is stated, inter alia, therein that this case is not maintainable as the RTI Act is a substantive law and there is a specific provision for appeal in the said statue for any relief under the said RTI Act, that the application of the complainant for Old Age Pension received on 23-09-2010 had been rejected on 31-01-2014 on the ground that the income of the complainant was found Rs. 1,200/- as per income certificate dt. 30-05-2012 of the said application. Age of the applicant (complainant) is 50 years as per his Ration Card in the year 2005 and other grounds and that this matter had been informed to the complainant by office letter dt. 06-02-2014 and according to the OP this petition of complaint should be rejected.
Both the parties have relied upon their respective cases by their respective pleadings supported by affidavit and documents (xerox copy) filed by the parties on record and also filed by their respective WNA.
Points for decision
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OP as alleged?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief as sought for?
Decision with reasons
Point nos. 1 & 2:
The ld. Advocate for the complainant submitted that the complainant, being an unemployed old age person applied before the District Magistrate on 23-09-2010 for having old age pension from the government of West Bengal, but he did not get the same and so the complainant filed an application under the provision of RTI Act, 2005 by paying requisite fee of Rs. 10/- before the OP as to the matter of the said old age pension, but the OP did not give any information. According to the ld Advocate for the complainant there is deficiency in service for such inaction on the part of the OP. to support his contentions the ld. Advocate for the complainant relied upon a decision reported in (2012) 2 WBLR (CPSC) 332, wherein it is observed that -in spite of having the remedy by way of an appeal to an applicant under the Karnataka Right to Information Act, 2002 when he did not get information within 15 days, such applicant could also approach under the C.P. Act of 1986 for deficiency in service where the Act of 2002 did not make any provision on that count.-
The ld Advocate appearing on behalf of the OP has contended, by bringing our notice to the written version along with annexure that the application of the complainant for Old Age Pension had been rejected on 31-01-2014 on the ground as mentioned in the paragraph 9 of written version of the OP filed on 18-02-2014 and that the complainant was informed about the matter of rejection of his said application vide Office Memo no. 47/XIXSW dt. 06-02-2014 of District Magistrate, Purba Medinipur (Social Welfare Section) which complainant received on same date. It is further contended on behalf of the OP that the complainant did not seek any specific information in his said application dt. 27-06-2012 under RTI Act.
The ld Advocate for the OP has also submitted that the decision cited on behalf of the complainant is not applicable in this case inasmuch as remedy is available to Appellate Authority under the provision of RTI Act 2005 and according to him this petition of complaint is not maintainable.
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties including annexure and documents filed by the parties. Considered the submissions of ld advocates of both parties.
On perusal of the application under the RTI Act dt. 27-06-2012 of the complainant addressed to the ld Additional District Magistrate (Haldia), it is apparent that the said application does not indicate any specific request for getting any specific information. There was only request to look into his pending matter of Old Age Pension. That being so the request of giving any answer/information does not arise by the OP by such application under RTI Act, 2005.
In this regard, we may refer a decision of the Hon-ble National Consumer Disputers Redressal Commission, New Delhi reported in 2013(4) CPR page 559 (NC) wherein it has been held that the petitioner cannot be claimed to be a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. There is remedy available for him to approach the Appellate Authority u/s 19 of RTI Act, 2005. In the above decision 2013(4) CPR page 559 (NC), the case cited under (2012) 2 WBLR (CPSC) 332 by the complainant (Dr. S.P. Thirumala vs. Municipal Commissioner, Revision Petition No. 1975 of 2005 decided on 28-05-2009) had also been referred.
In view of the discussions made above, materials on record and having regard to the decisions referred to above, we are of the view that the instant petition of complaint is not maintainable and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
That being the position, the instant case is liable to be dismissed.
The above two points are, thus, disposed of with the above observations and findings.
Hence, it is,
ORDERED
that the consumer case being no. 01/2014 be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest against the OP, but without any cost.
