Orissa

Rayagada

CC/304/2016

Dilip Kumar Behera - Complainant(s)

Versus

The P.I.O., - Opp.Party(s)

Self

12 Apr 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 304 / 2016.                                Date.       12  .    4   . 2018

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                          Preident.

Sri  GadadharaSahu,                                                                       Member.

Smt. Padmalaya  Mishra,                                                              Member.

 

Sri Dilip Kumar Behera, S/O: Bijaya Kumar Behera, Raniguda  Farm,      Po/Dist:Rayagada  (Odisha).                                            …. Complainant.

Versus.

1. The PIO-Cum-Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Rayagada.

2. The CPIO and Manager, CRM LIC of India, Berhampur Division, Berhampur, Dist:Ganjam.

3.The Public Information Officer,  Collectorate, Rayagada.                                                                                                                                                  ……...Opp.Parties

For the Complainant:- Subhra  Panda, Advocate, Rayagada.

For the O.P No.1 & 2.  :-  Sri Sahadev Chboudhury, Advocate, Rayagada.

For the O.P. No.3:- Set exparte.

.

JUDGMENT

The  curx of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for  non supply  of  information under R.T.I Act, 2005  for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.

                On being noticed the  O.P. No.1 & 2 appeared through their learned counsel and submitted that  Right to information  is an independent Act there is procedure for appeal, the party has to prefer   appeal at first instance.  Under the circumstances it is prayed that the case is preliminarily not maintainable  under the C.P. Act, 1986 and prayed to drop the proceeding against the O.Ps 1 & 2 for the best interest of justice.

On being noticed  the O.P No.3   neither entering in to appear before the forum nor filed their  written version despite availing  sufficient opportunity within these  10 adjournments. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayer to set exparte of the O.P No.3.  Observing lapses of around 1 years  for which the objectives  of the legislature of the C.P. Act going to be destroyed to the prejudice of the interest of the complainant.  Hence after hearing  the  counsel for the complainant set the case  exparte against the O.Ps. The action of the O.P No.3 is against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  under section  13(2) (b)(ii) of the Act. Hence the O.P No. 3  set exparte  as the statutory period  for filing of  written version was over to close the case with in the time frame permitted by the C.P. Act.

The O.Ps    appeared and filed their written version.  Heard arguments from the    O.Ps    and from the complainant.    Perused the record, documents, written version  filed by the parties. 

This forum  examined the entire material on record  and given  a thoughtful consideration  to the  arguments  advanced  before us by  the  parties & vehemently opposed the complaint touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

                                                FINDINGS.

On perusal of the written version it is revealed that the O.P. No.1 & 2  vehemently argued  that the case is not maintainable  preliminary under the C.P. act, 1986.

                Now  the issues to be decided by this forum are:-

          Whether this forum  has   jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under the C.P. Act, 1986  ?

While answering  the issue  we would like to refer the citations.  It is held and reported  in CPR-2011(4) page No. 482   the  Hon’ble  National commission,  where in observed  “Conumer forum  can not adjudicate  disputes without  addressing to the basic issues”.  In  another citation  reported in CPJ 2010(1) page No. 136 where in the Hon’ble  State Commission, New Delhi  observed  “Forum should decide the dispute of jurisdiction  first, application kept open to be decided later”.

Admittedly, in the case at hand, the complainant has not availed any service nor purchased any goods from the O.P. for any consideration, as such, he cannot be a ‘consumer’ under them. Only because the Consumer Protection Act is a social benefit oriented Act, it cannot besaid that any body who files a case before the District Forum,as the case may be he can bea ‘consumer’.

                       

On perusal of the  complaint petition this  forum observed  that the matters relating  to non supply of information  under R.T.I Act,2005. will not comes under the purview of the C.P. Act, 1986.  Where there is a special remedy is available to the parties under the R.T.I Act, 2005 provided by the legislature hence  this  forum did not inclined to invoke its jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter.  Hence  this forum has lack of jurisdiction to entertain the  above dispute  and adjudicate  the same under the provisions  of the C.P. Act, 1986.  The case is not maintainable in view of the above discussion.

 

It is held and reported in C.P.R. 2015(1) page No. 171 in the case of S.K.Mishra and others Vrs. PIO  and  others  where in the hon’ble National Commission observed “Jurisdiction of Consumer forum  to intervene in the matters   arising out of provisions  of RTI Act is barred by  necessary implication  U/S- 23 of the said Act”.

Further the person seeking information  under the provisions of RTI Act can not be said to be a consumer  Vis-A –Vis  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. 

 

Again  the legislature has empowered the State Information Commission, to 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, omission or inaction  of its CPIO/PIO, as the case may be. Therefore the redressal mechanism provided under the RTI Act  can not be  said to be in any manner less efficacious  then the remedy available before a consumer forum.

In view of the above discussion and citation  the grievance of the complainant can be raised  before the appropriate court of law and not before this forum. We  do not  think  proper to go  into merit of this case.

Hence, the claim of the   complainant can not be accepted under the provisions of the C.P. Act. It is open to  complainant   ordinary remedy to approach proper forum.       

So  to meet the  ends of justice    the following order is passed.

ORDER.

            In resultant  the complaint petition stands  dismissed. The complainant  is free to approach the court of competent  having  its jurisdiction.   Parties are left to bear their own cost.  Accordingly the case  is closed.

                The time spent before consumer forum shall be set-off  by  the  authority, where the proceedings are taken up, as per provision of Section-14 of Limitation Act  held  as  reported  in SCC 1995(3) page No. 583  the Hon’ble Supreme Court   in the case of Laxmi Engineering works Vrs. P.S.G.Industrial Institute.

Dictated and corrected by me

Pronounced on this             12th          Day of   April,  2018.

 

                Member.                                               Member.                                                               President