BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE

                                                             Dated this the 31^st October 2013

PRESENT

        SMT. ASHA SHETTY           :   PRESIDENT

                        SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI       :   MEMBER

                        SRI. ARUN KUMAR K.        :   MEMBER

COMPLAINT NO.54/2013

(Admitted on 16.02.2013)

Mr.K.Abdulla,

S o Late K.Moideen,

Aged 63 years,

R at  Morning Star,

Door No.14 3 8,

Manchila, Thokottu,

Post Ullal,

Mangalore  575 020.                    …….. COMPLAINANT

(Advocate for Complainant: Sri. P.Ranjan Rao)

          VERSUS

The LIC Housing Finance Ltd.,

LIC Building,

K.S.Rao Road,

Mangalore.

Represented by its Manager.        ……OPPOSITE PARTY

(Advocate for Opposite Party: Sri.Thimmayya P)

                                      ***************

ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT

SMT. ASHA SHETTY:

I.       1. This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service as against the Opposite Party claiming certain reliefs. 

The brief facts of the case are as under:

The complainant stated that, he along with Mrs.Mehrunnisa and Mrs.Zahida had availed the housing loan from the Opposite Party vide loan account No.16031005573 and 16031005591.  It is stated that, the complainant made an application dated 31.10.2012 to the opposite party requesting the opposite party to furnish the information under Right to Information Act i.e. to furnish the statement of account pertaining to the Loan Account No.16031005573 and 16031005591 availed by the complainant with Mehrunnisa and Mrs.Zahida from the beginning till 31.10.2012 with the uptodate accrued interest and also the statement showing the loan availed, loan repaid, interest debited. But the opposite party refused to furnish the information and hence it is contended that the Opposite Party has committed deficiency in service and hence the complainant filed the above complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Forum to the Opposite Party to furnish the statement of account on loan account No.16031005573 and 16031005591 availed by the complainant along with Mehrunnisa and Mrs.Zahida from the beginning till 31.10.2012 with up-to-date accrued interest along with compensation and cost of the proceedings.

II.      1. Version notice served to the Opposite Party by R.P.A.D. Opposite Party appeared through their counsel filed version admitted that the complainant along with Mrs.Mehrunnisa and Mrs.Zahida availed the housing loan and paid the loan and closed on 27.2.2012.  It is stated that, the opposite party informed the complainant that information cannot be furnished under Right to Information Act as the question of applicability of the said Act is subjudice.  It is also stated that, the opposite party has served the copies of the Statement of Account to the complainant and denied the deficiency and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

III.     1.  In support of the complaint, Mr.K.Abdulla (CW1) – Complainant filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and answered the interrogatories served on him and produced Ex. C1 and C2. On behalf of Opposite Party one Mr.B.Shekanna, Area Manager (RW-1) filed counter affidavit and answered the interrogatories served on him and produced Ex.R1 to R4.

          In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:

1. Whether this FORA has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?

2. Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Party has committed deficiency in service?
3. If so, whether the Complainant is  entitled for the reliefs claimed?
4. What order?

                        We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:

                          Point No.(i) & (ii): Negative.

                         Point No.(iii) & (iv): As per the final order.

REASONS

IV.    1.  POINTS NO. (i) TO (iv):

   Now the point for consideration is that, whether the complaint filed by the complainant is maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The pleading of the parties specifically states that, the complainant along with others availed housing loans vide loan account Nos. No.16031005573 and 16031005591 and the same was closed on 27.2.2012.  It is contended that, the complainant had applied under Right to Information Act and sought some documents pertaining to the loan account but opposite party failed to furnish those documents and hence came up with this complaint.

Since it is categorically admitted that, the documents are sought under the Right to Information Act 2005, when the opposite party failed to furnish those documents then complainant is at liberty to approach concerned authority to redress their grievances. Section 23 of the Right to Information Act 2005 defines that no courts shall entertain any suit, application or other proceedings in respect of any order made under this Act and no such order shall be called in question otherwise then by way of an appeal under this Act. We find that, if the interference of the court is permitted by entertaining the complaint the very implementation of the Act will the unsettled. Moreover the orders of the ultimate authorities under the Right to Information Act are made final.  Therefore, the Act provides that anybody affected by any order made by any authority shall seek only the remedies available under that Act only.  In case the documents are not furnished the remedies available under the Act to the citizen who is aggrieved by anything done or not done by authorities under the Act are in the first instance there is a right to appeal to the higher officer and also a right to file second appeal against the order of the higher officer.  When that being so, the aggrieved party has to approach the information commission which has all the power to deal with the matter treating it as an independent representation.  In view of the aforesaid reasons, we are of the opinion that, the Complainant ought to have approached the State Information Commission instead of filing a complaint before this Authority. Therefore, the complaint deserves to be dismissed with a liberty approach the appropriate authority. No order as to cost.

          In the result, we pass the following:  

ORDER

The complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost.

Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forward to the parties and file shall be consigned to record room.

(Page No.1 to 7 dictated to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 31^st day of October 2013)  

PRESIDENT                MEMBER                         MEMBER

ANNEXURE

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:

CW1 – Mr.K.Abdulla – Complainant.

Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex C1: 31.10.2012: Form-a given by the complainant to the O.P.

Ex C2:20.11.2012: Letter addressed by the O.P. to the complainant.

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:

RW-1: Mr.B.Shekanna, Area Manager of  Opposite Party.

Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Party:        

Ex R1 to R4: Copies of the Statement of loan accounts.

Dated:31-10-2013                                       PRESIDENT