This complaint  having come up for final hearing before us on 18.02.2015  on perusal of the material records  and on hearing the  arguments of  Thiru.V.Krishnamoorthy,  the complainant in person  and  the opposite party  in person  and having stood  before us for consideration, till this day the Forum  passed the following

By President, Thiru..P.G.Rajagopal, B.A.B.L., 

                       This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection

Act 1986.                    

2) The gist of the complaint filed by the complainant is that he sought for information /s.6of the Right to Information Act from the opposite party affixing court fees of Rs.10/- on the application but the opposite party has failed to furnish the information with in the prescribed time of 30 days from the date of receipt of the application and in spite of the notice sent by the complainant on 25.02.2013 pointing out his deficiency of service incomplying with the statutory provision of the Right to Information Act and only after that on 04.03.2013 wrong information was furnished to him.Hencehe prays for an order to direct the opposite party to furnish the complete information on his application in accordance with the provisions of the Act, to pay Rs.50,000/-for the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and unnecessary expenditure caused to him and to furnish all the documents relating to this complaint in Tamil language, to pay the cost of the litigation and to grant such other reliefs as this Forum would deem fit.

3) The gist of the written version filed by the opposite party that there is no relationship of consumerand service provider between the complainant and the opposite party and the Right to Information Act it self being a self contained Act the complainant can seek his remedies whats oever only under the said Act.The complaint is therefore liable to be dismissed as unsustainable.

4. The complainant has filed his proof affidavit reiterating all the averments made in his complaint and has filed 8 documents which are marked as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.8 in support and proof of his claim in his complaint.No proof affidavit is filed on the side of the opposite party. Since the proof affidavit was not filed by the opposite party he is set exparte.As the complainant is in person no written arguments need to be submitted by him.

                  5)   The points for Determination are:

                        1)  Whether  the complaint is legally sustainable  before this Forum?

                        2) Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?

                        3) Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what relief?

6)POINT  NO.1 The opposite party has contendedthat the complaint is not maintainablebefore this Forum in view of thedecision of the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Durai Raj –vs- Divisional Personnel Officer & Nodel PublicInformation Officer, Southern Railway,Madurai and Another, reported in “I (2014) CPJ 444 (NC) “ in which it is held that theRight to Information Actis a code in itself . It provides forremedies available under this Act to a person who has been denied any information .Since the petitionerhas specificremedy available tohimunder the Right to Information Act.Hencethe complaintis not maintainable.

7) The contention of the complainant isthat he has not received information within the prescribed period of 30 days u/s 6 of the Right to Information Act and furtherhe has notreceivedcomplete informationsoughtby him and thereforeit is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.It is also held in

“ 2013 (IV)CPR page 559”

“ SriKali Ram…… Petitioner

/versus/

State Public Information Officer cum-

Deputy Excise and Taxation Commission…. Respondent

In which the Hon’ble National Commission has heldthat there areremedy available for him to approach the Appellate Authority u/s.19 of the Right to Information Act 2005.Therefore,in view of the settled legal position promulgated by the National Commission the complaint is not maintainablebefore this Forum and the complainant is to seek remedies only under the Right to Information Act which is a self contained Actin itself.

8) POINT NO.2:-In view of thefinding given to point No.1 that the complaint is not maintainable before this Forum there isno necessity to decide the said point.

 9) POINT No.3:- In the result, the complaint is dismissed and no order as to costs.

                  This order was dictated by me to the Steno-Typist, transcribed by her and corrected  and pronounced by me on this  4th  day of  March 2015.

MEMBER -I                                                                                                 PRESIDENT

List of documents on the side of the complainant:-

List of documents on the side of the   Opposite party :    NIL