BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MANGALORE
Dated this the 17th May 2013
PRESENT
SMT. ASHA SHETTY : HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI : MEMBER
SRI. ARUN KUMAR K. : MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO.216/2010
BETWEEN:
B.Prakash Bhat,
Behind S.S. Sadan,
Kodialbail Post,
Mangalore. …….. COMPLAINANT
(Advocate for the Complainant:)
VERSUS
1. The Principal Secretary for Urban
Development M.S. Building,
Bangalore 1.
2. The Directorate of Municipal Administration,
Vishweshwaraiah Towers, Podium Block,
Near GPO, Bangalore-1.
3. Sri.K.N.Vijayaprakash,
Commissioner, Mangalore City,
Corporation, Lalbagh,
Mangalore.
4. Sri.Manjayya Shetty,
Health Officer,
Mangalore City Corporation,
Lalbagh, Mangalore. ……. OPPOSITE PARTIES
(Opposite Party No. 1 & 2: Exparte)
(Advocate for the O.P. No.3 & 4: Sri Dr.G.Balakrishna Prabhu)
**************
ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE MEMBER
SMT. LAVANYA M.RAI:
I. 1. The facts of the complaint in brief are as follows:
This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties claiming certain reliefs.
The complainant stated that he made application under RTI Act 2005 before the Opposite Party No.4 for paying Rs.10/- to the Opposite Party. Opposite Party No.4 being the responsible official and public information officer agreed to provide the information for a consideration. But the Opposite Party No.4 failed to dispose the application within stipulated time, despite of collecting necessary fee. Further the complainant submitted that Opposite Party No.4 being aware of his responsibilities failed to provide the information after collecting fee of Rs.10/- and also Opposite Party No.4 harass the complainant and demonstrated the negligence in dealing with the application after received the consideration by way of Indian postal order.
After that the complainant made complaint under Section 18 and 20 of the RTI Act 2005 before the Karnataka Information Commission at Bangalore against Opposite Party No.4 same is numbered as KIC/Comp. 6791/08. The Hon’ble Commission after hearing the complaint passed an order on 7.12.2009 that any further lapses of Opposite Party No.4 he will be listed out in the confidential report to the Government. Further submitted that the Opposite party No.1 to 3 despite of issuance of notice under Section 80 of C.P.C. failed to take action on the Opposite Party No.4. As Opposite party No.4 is controlled and supervised by Opposite Party No.3. the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 could have decided the Opposite party No.3 to take disciplinary action on Opposite Party No.4 for his failure to supply information. Hence all the opposite parties are liable to pay the cost and damages to the complainant. The complainant further submitted that because of faulty service, negligence and harassment of the Opposite Party No.4 complainant not received information within stipulated time hence the above complaint filed under Section 12 of the C.P. Act 1986 (herein after referred to as the ‘Act’) seeking direction from Opposite party to give litigation expenses and damages of Rs.25,000/- being the cost of the expenditure that is spent by the complainant on account of repealed to the Bangalore before the KIC Bangalore.
II. 1. Version notice served to the Opposite Parties by RPAD. Opposite Party No.3 and 4 appeared through their counsel and filed version of Opposite Party No.4 and Opposite party No.3 adopted the version of Opposite party No.4.
Opposite No.1 and 2 inspite of receiving notice, not appeared nor contested the case till this date. Hence we have proceeded exparte as against the Opposite Party No.1 and 2. The postal acknowledgement availed on record marked as Doc.No.1 and 2.
Opposite Party No.3 and 4 denied the entire allegations made in the complaint and stated that there is no specific allegation made against this Opposite parties. The entire complaint contains only some alleged grievances of the complainant as against opposite party No.4. Further the Opposite party stated that the complainant had sought certain information regarding cattle shed at Kulai and filed application dated 16.7.2008 and it was provided on 28.7.2008. Thereafter the complainant filed petition dated 3.11.2008 before Karnataka Information Commission under Section 18 & 20 to which the Opposite Party No.4 replied dated 16.2.2009 by enclosing the copies of the information provided to the complainant. In view of his denial of having received the information the Opposite party again sent a copy of the same on 20.4.2009. Therefore there is no delay in furnishing informations and also there is no cause of action for the complaint, the allegation made against the Opposite party hence there is no deficiency of service and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
III. 1. In support of the complaint, Mr. Prakash Bhat (CW-1) filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and answered the interrogatories served on him. Ex.C1 to C13 were marked for the complainant as listed in the annexure in detail one Mr.Dr.Manjayya Shetty (RW-1) of Opposite Party filed counter affidavit and answered the interrogatories served on him.
In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:
- Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Parties have committed deficiency in service?
- If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
- What order?
We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and we have also considered the materials that was placed before the Hon'ble Forum and answer the points are as follows:
Point No.(i): Negative.
Point No.(ii) & (iii): As per the final order.
REASONS
IV. 1. POINTS No. (i) to (iii):
Earlier, this District FORA was pleased to pass an order dated: 5.10.2010 by dismissing the complaint against Opposite parties.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the complainant preferred an appeal No.5043/2010 before the Hon’ble State Commission the said appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted to the District Forum for fresh enquiry in accordance with law after due notice to both the parties. Hence remitted for fresh disposal.
After the remand fresh notice was issued to both the parties. Opposite Parties No.3 and 4 appeared through their counsel and tendered their evidence. Since the present case dismissed for default before tendering the evidence of the complainant. Hence the complainant filed affidavit after the remand.
Now the points are in dispute between the parties before this FORA is that the complainant contended that after taking the Opposite Party No.4 not provide the information sought by the complainant within stipulated time & harass the complainant with negligence. Thereafter the complainant made complaint under Section 18 and 20 of the RTI Act before Karnataka Information Commission at Bangalore. After having the same the Hon’ble Commission noted in faulty service of Opposite Party No.4 any further lapses he will be listed out in the confidential report to the Government and not only that the Hon’ble Commission also noted failure of the Opposite Party No.4 in having control over his subordinate, the Opposite Party No.1 to 3 not even having control over the Opposite Party No.4 kept quiet without their being any legal action on Opposite Party No.4. Hence he came up with this complaint. The complainant filed evidence by way of affidavit & produced Ex.C1 and C13.
Opposite Parties on the other hand denied the allegations made in the complaint and stated that failure to supply information under RTI Act which is an independent act and it provides reminder for non-supply of information and the complaint filed is with ulterior motive. Further the Opposite Party who stated that the notes of arguments, the complainant has produced two order’s alleging it to be against Opposite Party No.4 has been made to pay to the complainant certain amount for his failure to furnish information. Opposite Party No.4 has enriched himself by that way and now again he is making similar allegations and seeks payment of Rs.25,000/-. The information sought for by the complainant has been furnished by the Opposite Party and Opposite Party No.4 is retired over a year ago and he has no access to the documents or the files. Hence the Opposite party No.4 contended that there is no deficiency in service. The Opposite Party No.4 filed evidence by way of affidavit.
On perusing the rival contentions raised by the respective parties we find that the complainant filed application under RTI Act against Opposite Party No.4 on 14.7.2008, which is marked as Ex.C1. Thereafter non supply of the documents within stipulated time, the complainant filed complaint under Section 18 and 20 of RTI Act before Karnataka Information Commission at Bangalore. The above said complaint was disposed on 7.12.2009 which is marked as Ex.C109 with the direction to the Opposite Party No.4 “ to be carefull and prompt in dealing with the requests for information received under RTI Act and any future lapses in this regard would be recommended for recording in annual confidential report”. Thereafter the Opposite Party No.4 supplied the information to the complainant which is disclosed in Ex.C13 the complainant himself admitted that he was received the applied documents from Opposite Party No.4.
Further we also noticed that, the entire evidence and documents available on record which clearly shows that the complainant is already made allegation to the Opposite Party No.4 before the Karnataka Information Commission at Bangalore for above same complaint and received order from the RTI Authority. Now he come before this FORA for making similar allegation against the above same fact against the Opposite Parties is does not arise. Further the Ex.C10 & Ex.C13 disclosed that the above same fact is already disposed before the Karnataka Information Commission at Bangalore. Once again filing complaint before this FORA on same material of facts does not arise. Hence the complaint has no merits deserves to be dismissed. No order as to costs.
In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forward to the parties free of costs and file shall be consigned to record room.
(Page No.1 to 8 dictated to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 17th May 2013.)
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1 – Mr B.Prakash Bhat – Complainant.
Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex C1 – Office copy of Application made under RTI Act 2005.
Ex C2 – Certified copy of the judgment of the National Commission, made in Rev. Petition No.1975/2005.
Ex C3 – 3.4.2009: Certified copy of the Order made by the Hon’ble Karnataka Information Commission.
Ex C4 – 4.8.2009: Certified copy of the Order made by the Hon’ble Karnataka Information Commission.
Ex C5 – 26.11.2009:: Certified copy of the Order made by the Hon’ble Karnataka Information Commission.
Ex C6 – 7.12.2009: Certified copy of the Order made by the Hon’ble Karnataka Information Commission.
Ex C7 – Original notice issued U/s 80 of the C.P.C. 1908 to the O.P.
Ex C8 – Postal Receipt 4 No’s for having sent Sec. 80.
Ex C9 – Postal Acknowledgement card signed by O.P.
Ex C10 – Proof of delivery certificate issued by Postal Authorities.
Ex C11 – 12.5.2009 : Letter from the Mangalore City Corporation to the complainant.
Ex C12 – Copy of the information extract of M.C.C.
Ex C13 – 28.7.2008: Letter written by the Health Officer, M.C.C. Mangalore to the complainant.
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
RW1 – Dr.Manjayya Shetty, Health Officer in Mangalore of O.P. No.4.
Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
- Nil -
Dated:17.5.2013 MEMBER
