Tamil Nadu

Thoothukkudi

CC/48/2013

S.Arumugapandi - Complainant(s)

Versus

The P.I.O, Tuticorin City Municipal ity Corporation Office - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.P.Swamy Ayyah

03 Feb 2015

ORDER

Filed on:27/03/2013.

                                                                                 Disposed on:03/02/2015.

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM TUTICORIN.

Present: Thiru.M.Chinnapandi, B.A., B.L., President,

Thiru.Dr.S.Leonard Vasanth., M.A., LL.B., Ph.D., Member I.

Tmt.K.Rosy Anne Florence, M.A., M.Phil, B.Ed., Member II,

(Tuesday the 03^rd day of February 2015)

CONSUMER COMPLAINT.NO:48/2013.

Arumugapandi,

S/o.Sudalai Mani,

2f/224, P & T Colony, 7^th Street East,

Thoothukudi – 8.                                                                    ...Complainant.

 

                               ..vs..

 

The Public Information Officer,

Thoothukudi City Municipal Corporation Office,

Palai Road,

Thoothukudi.                                                                     … Opposite party.

 

 

                   This complaint came before us for final hearing on 20-1-02015 in the presence of Thiru P.Swamy Ayyah, Advocate for the complainant and Thiru A.Gomathi Manikandan, Advocate for the opposite party and having stood over till this day for consideration this Forum made the following:

ORDER

Thiru.M.Chinnapandi, President.

          1) The points for consideration are:-

1. Whether non furnishing of information under the RTI Act will come under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act?

2. Whether the complaint is maintainable and the complainant is a consumer?

3. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the complainant is entitled to compensation?  

          2) Points 1 to 3: The complainant has given petition to the Public Information Officer seeking certain information.  The Information Officer though received the petition did not give information within the prescribed time.  The non furnishing of the information is deficiency of service.  Therefore the complainant has come to this Forum to direct the opposite party to furnish information and to give compensation for deficiency of service. 

          3) The complainant has to prove that he is a consumer under the Act.  He has affixed court fee of Rs.10/- on the application seeking certain information.  The court fee paid on the application cannot be treated as consideration.  The court fee payable on the application is determined by the Government without the consent of the person paying the court fee.  Consideration is different from affixture of court fee on the application.  Just because the complainant has paid court fee it is not a consideration either for purchase or of goods or for availing the services.  Further there is specific provision in RTI Act namely section 23 with specifically bars jurisdiction of the court or other proceedings.  Section 23 of RTI Act reads as follows:  “No court 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 than by way of appeal under this Act.  Further the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi by referring the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Khanapuram GandaiahVs., Administrative Officer and ors., 1(2010) SLT 66 = 1(2010) CLT 8(SC) = AIR 2010 SC 615, Wherein it was held that the remedy for a party aggrieved against the order of the Public Information Officer lies in a challenge by way of appeal, revision or any other legally permissible mode, allowed the appeal.  In its judgement reported in IV 2013 CPJ page 300 (NC) has held that “The aggrieved person under the RTI Act, is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act since there is a remedy available for the aggrieved person to approach the appellant authority under section 19 of the RTI Act 2005 and that the complaint in the Consumer Forum is not maintainable.  Our Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai in Revision petition 115/2012 has held that the aggrieved person under the RTI Act cannot maintain the complaint before the Consumer Forum since the RTI Act itself prohibits filing of suit or complaint before any other Forum except preferring appeal to the authority ranked in the RTI Act.  Therefore aggrieved person under the RTI Act cannot approach this forum as a Consumer and seek remedy under the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

          4) In view of the above discussion it is decided that the complainant is not a consumer under the Act and the complaint is not maintainable therefore no relief can be granted to the complainant and the points are answered accordingly.      

          5) In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.

                   Dictated to the Assistant taken and typed by him and corrected by me and pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 3^rd day of February 2015.

 

Member II.                                   Member I.                                    President.

Annexure

I) List of documents marked for the complainant.

1. Ex.A1/9-1-2013         : RTI petition with postal receipt

2. Ex.A2/              : Postal Acknowledgement card

 

                                                           Member II.                                   Member I.                                    President.

11/2/15