Orissa

Rayagada

CC/15/57

Sri Golbadhan Das, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Public Information Office, and others - Opp.Party(s)

self

15 Jan 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 57/ 2015.                                 Date.    15    .1. 2018.

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                                   President

Sri GadadharaSahu, .                                                      Member.

Smt.  Padmalaya  Mishra,                                             Member

 

Sri Golbadhan Das, At: Taili  Sahi, Po:Therubali, Dist.Rayagada,State:  Odisha.                                                                                                                                           …….Complainant

Vrs.

1.The  Public Information Officer, O/O of the D.E.O., Po/ Dist: Rayagada.

2. The Ist. Appellate Authority-Cum-District Education Officer, Po/ Dist: Rayagada

.                                                                                                           .…..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant: - Self.

For the O.Ps  :- Self.

                                J u d g e m e n t.

        The  present disputes arises out of the complaint petition filed by the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for non supply of information under  R.T.I Act, 2005.

         On being noticed the  O.Ps  appeared and took adjournments but not choose to file written version before the forum  and was proceeded  exparte. In view of justice as contemplated U/S- 13 (2) (b)(ii) of C.P. Act, 1986 as the statutory period  for filing  written version was over to close the case with in the time frame permitted by the C.P. Act.

          We therefore proceed to dispose of the case on its merit.  Heard from the  complainant.   We perused the complaint petition and the document filed by the complainant.

         FINDINGS.

          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”

At this stage, it is appropriate to quote Section  2(1)(d) of C.P. Act,  which reads as follows:-

            “(d)”Consumer” means any person who-

1. Buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any  system of deferred payment   and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys   such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly  promised , or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
2. Hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly  promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails  of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and  partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed  of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose”.

 

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 violation of Section-12(1) and (2) of the R.T.E. Act, 2009 by  Chinmaya  Vidyalaya, Therubali and also 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(Supra).  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 is hereby  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.

                It is held and 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 where in observed   “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.

Dictated and corrected by me

Pronounced on this     15th          Day of   January,  2018.

 

                Member.                                               Member.                                                               President