BEFORE THE HONOURABLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

AT PUDHUCHERY.

F.A No.11 of 2014.

B. Bharathi,

No. 57, Kavi Kuil Street,

Ashok Nagar, Lawspet,

Puducherry – 605 008.                                                                 … Appellant / Complainant

                                                                           Vs.

1. The Deputy General Manager-cum-

Public Information Officer,

Office of the General Manager,

BSNL, No. 1, New CTO Building,

Ranga Pillai Street, Puducherry – 605 001.

2. The Senior General Manager,

BSNL, No. 1, New CTO Building,

Rangapillai Street, Puducherry – 605 0101.                       Respondents / Opposite Parties

(On appeal against the order of the District Forum, Puducherry passed in un-numbered Consumer Complaint of 2014, dt.24.06.2014)

Un-Numbered Complaint of 2014

B. Bharathi,

No. 57, Kavi Kuil Street,

Ashok Nagar, Lawspet,

Puducherry – 605 008.                                ……                                                               Complainant

                                                                           Vs.

1. The Deputy General Manager-cum-

Public Information Officer,

Office of the General Manager,

BSNL, No. 1, New CTO Building,

Ranga Pillai Street, Puducherry – 605 001.

2. The Senior General Manager,

BSNL, No. 1, New CTO Building,

Rangapillai Street, Puducherry – 605 0101.    ……..                                              Opposite Parties

BEFORE:

HON’BLE THIRU JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN

PRESIDENT

TMT.K.K.RITHA,

MEMBER

FOR APPELLANT/O.P.:

Thiru B.Bharahi – Party-in-person

FOR RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT.:

Thiru R.K.Premkumar

Advocate, Puducherry

O  R   D   E   R

(By Lordship Justice President)

1. This appeal is preferred against the orders of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pudhucherry dated 24-06-2014 made in unnumbered complaint of the year 2014.
2. The short matrix of the matter set out by the Appellant / Complainant before the District Forum are set out hereunder.

1. The Appellant is a consumer of BSNL using land line and cell phone. They are trapped. He lodged complaints to the first respondent. He also gave numbers of sim cards from which he received unsolicited called. He requested the first Respondent to enquire the matter. But no action was taken.
2. He preferred application under RTI Act 2005 on 02-04-2014 seeking information from the first Respondent. However the first Respondent failed to furnish the information required by him. Hence he preferred an appeal before the second Respondent. The same was disposed of by him without hearing him. Hence he preferred second Appeal before the Central Information Commission.
3. The Central – Information Commission directed the first Respondent to furnish the information required by him, by its order dated 31-05-2013. However the first Respondent gave only incomplete and incorrect information. It is a deficiency of service under Consumer protection Act 1986.
4. The Appellant therefore filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pudhucherry. The same was returned for certain reasons. The same was answered and the papers were represented. Thereupon the District Forum by its order dated 24-06-2014 dismissed his complaint. Hence the Appellant has preferred this Appeal.     

3. In the appeal the following points have been raised and put forth by the Appellant. They are

1. The Appellant is a Consumer under the Consumer protection Act. This has been over looked by the District Forum.
2. The District Forum should have considered his complaint under the Consumer Protection Act and it should not have directed the Appellant to approach the authorities under the RTI Act to seek remedy.
3. It is not correct to quote the provisions of the RTI Act and the Rules framed there under to deny the claim of the Complainant. The claim should have been considered under the consumer Act, for deficiency of service of the Respondents.  
4. The Appellant having exhausted his remedy by filling second Appeal, has approached the District Forums under the Consumer Act. Therefore the same should not have been dismissed. 

4.  In the appeal before us the same contentions have been raised and certain decisions have been cited.
5. On the other hand the counsel appearing for the Respondents contended that a person who has approached the RTI Act seeking for certain information, on misinformation, less information or no information, cannot be considered as a consumer and he or she in such circumstances has to work out the remedy only under the RTI Act and cannot approach for a relief under the Consumer Protection Act. He relied on the recent decision rendered by the Hon’ble National Consumer Distputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi dated 08-01-2015 made in Revision Petition No. 3146 of 2012.
6. We have carefully considered the rival submission.
7. The case put forth by Sri. Bharathi, the Appellant in person is that he gave a complaint to the BSNL authorities when he received unsolicited calls. He has also gave a complaint that his land line and cell phone were trapped. However no action was taken on his complaint. Hence he has approached the first respondent under the RTI Act seeking certain information. However there was no response. Hence that made him to file an appeal before the second respondent, who has disposed of the matter without hearing him. Hence he was constrained to approach the central Information Commission. It directed the first respondent, by its order dated 31-05-2013 to furnish the information required by him. However the first respondent gave only incomplete information. Therefore alleging that it is a deficiency of service, the Appellant knocked the door of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Puducherry. The District Forum held that the complaint preferred by him is not maintainable. In fact such order came to be passed in an unnumbered complaint. Therefore the Appellant has approached the State Commission.
8. The only question that arises for our consideration is, in the given circumstances, whether the Appellant is entitled to seek for a relief under the Consumer Protection Act. The Appellant party in person relied on several decisions to support his case. However we are of the view that the recent decision of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi answered the issues raised by the Appellant.
9. In fact noticing conflict view was taken by the Commission, one that the deficiency alleged by a person who has approached the RTI Act is a consumer and can approach the Consumer forum and the other taking a contrary view, a larger Bench was constituted to decide the issue. Finally the larger bench of the National Commission settled the issue holding that consumer Forum cannot be approached in such circumstances.  
10. The Hob’ble National Commission took note of the several decisions rendered including that of the Hon’ble Apex Court, some of which were cited by the Appellant party in persons it would be usefull to extract certain paragraphs of the said decisions.

Para 10:

“Two questions mainly come up for our consideration in these matters. Firstly, whether a person, seeking information under RTI Act can be said to be a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act, and secondly, if he is held to be a consumer whether the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum, in such matters is barred under the provisions of RTI Act or otherwise”.

Para 15:

“It would thus be seen that the RTI Act is a complete code in itself, which provides an adequate and effective remedy to the person aggrieved from any decision / inaction / act / omission or misconduct of a CPIO / PIO. Not only does the Act provide for two appeals, it also provides for a complaint to the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, in a case where the CPIO / PIO does not give his decision, on the application, which the prescribed time. If a person is still aggrieved, he can approach the concerned High Court by way of a writ petition. In fact, several writ petitions are pending in the High Courts against the orders passed by the Central Information Commission”.

Para 16:

“It is settled legal proposition that when a right is created by a Statute which also provides for an adequate and satisfactory alternative remedy for the enforcement of the said right, the person seeking to enforce such a right must necessarily take recourse to the redressal mechanism provided in the Act by which the said right is created and a Civil Court, cannot be approached for enforcement of such a right. Of course, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not excluded in a case where the provisions of the Act are not complied or the order is passed in contravention of the fundamental principles of the judicial procedure”.

Para 18:

“In our opinion, the above referred legal principles with respect to exclusion of the jurisdiction of Civil Court are equally applicable to other forums such as a Consumer Forum. To permit a consumer Forum, to intervene while excluding the intervention of a Civil Court, in the matter of enforcement of a right created by a special statute, which also provides an effective remedy for the enforcement of such a right, would result in defeating the very purpose behind providing a special mechanism for such enforcement and ousting the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. This in our view could not have been the legislative intent to permit a consumer forum to intervene, while providing a special mechanism for enforcement of the legal right conferred by the Act, and ousting the jurisdiction of the civil court. The jurisdiction of other forums in such matters, therefore, is barred by necessarily implication”.

Para 19:

“Section 23 of RTI Act, which bars jurisdiction of Courts to intervene in certain matter reads as under.

            “Bar of jurisdiction of courts – No court shall entertain any suit, application or other proceeding in respect of any order made under this Act and no such order shall be called in question otherwise than by way of an appeal under this Act”.

Para20:

“To the extent an applicant under RTI Act is aggrieved from the orders passed by the Appellate Authorities under the RTI Act he cannot be said to be a consumer qua the functions discharged by them. Their function is to examine the correctness of the orders passed by the CPIO / PIO or to decide whether a particular CPIO / PIO has refused to accept an application seeking information; had failed to provide the requisite information, had asked for unreasonable fee or destroyed the information sought by the applicant. They do not by themselves are responsible to supply information, though they may direct its supply to the applicant. They primarily discharge judicial / quasi judicial functions assigned to them under the Act. If the consumer fora are held to be “Court’ for the purpose of Section 23 of the RTI Act, its jurisdiction would be expressly barred if the complainant seeks to question an order passed under the provisions of RTI Act”.

Para 22:

“It was submitted by Shri Sanjay Kr. Mishra that the Appellate Authorities under the RTI Act, cannot award compensation for the deficiency in the services rendered to the complainants, whereas the Consumer Fora can provide such a relief and, therefore, the remedy available under the RTI Act cannot be said to be an equally efficacious remedy. In our opinion, it is not necessary that the legislature has to provide for grant of compensation in every case of deficiency in the services rendered to a consumer. The legislature has empowered the Central Information Commission / State Information Commission, as the case may be impose penalty upon the errant CPIO / PIO besides recommending disciplinary action against them. Additionally, Sub Section (6) of Section 18 empowers them to direct the concerned public authority to pay suitable compensation to the information seeker who has suffered any loss or other detriment on account of the acts, omissions or inaction of its CPIO / PIO, as the case may be. Therefore, the redressal mechanism provided under the RTI Act Cannot be said to be in any manner less efficacious then the remedy available before a consumer forum”.

Para 23:

“Considering the legislative intent behind providing a special mechanism for enforcement of the rights conferred by RTI Act, we are of the view that the consumer fora are ‘Courts’ for the purpose of Section 23 of the RTI Act. Any other interpretation will open two parallel machineries, for enforcement of the same rights created by a special stature, which could not have been the legislative intent, particularly when RTI Act is a special law vis-à-vis Consumer Protection Act. The ambit of RTI Act is confined to one service i.e supply of information, whereas the Consumer Protection Act deals with deficiencies in a wide variety of services rendered for consideration”.

Para 25:

“For the reasons stated hereinabove, we hold that (i) the person seeking information under the provisions of RTI Act cannot be said to be a consumer vis-à-vis the Public Authority concerned or CPIO / PIO nominated by it and (ii) the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum to intervene in the matters arising out of the provisions of the RTI Act is barred by necessary implication as also under the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act. Consequently no complaint by a person alleging deficiency in the services rendered by the CPIO / PIO is maintainable before a Consumer Forum”. 

11. Thus the Hon’ble Commission has held that the person who has approached the forum under the RTI Act, seeking information, cannot be a consumer and such complaint before the consumer forum is not maintainable. We are bound by the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission.-
12. Thus we are of the view that decision rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Reversal Forum, Puducherry dated 24-06-2014 made in unnumbered complaint of the Appellant herein requires no reconsideration at our end and the same is upheld. In the result the Appeal stands dismissed. However the Appellant is at liberty to approach the required forum to seek his redressal. There is no order as to cost.

Dated at Puducherry this the 30^th Day of April 2015.

(Justice K.VEKATARAMAN)

President

(K.K.RITHA)

Member