BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, B.Com B.L., President
And
Sri. M.Krishna Reddy, M.Sc., M.Phil., Male Member
And
Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, B.A., B.L., Lady Member
Wednesday the 9th day of March, 2011
C.C.No 152/10
Between:
B.Venkateswara Reddy,S/o B.Venkata Reddy,
H.No.40-836, Behind S.B.I. Main Branch, N. R. Pet, Kurnool - 518 001.
…Complainant
-Vs-
The Revenue Divisional Officer,Kurnool Revenue Division,
H.No.41/803(C), Kothapeta, Kurnool - 518 001.
…Opposite Party
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri S.Babu Saheb, Advocate, for complainant, and opposite party is called absent and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, President)
C.C. No. 152/10
1. This complaint is filed under section 11 and 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying:-
- To direct the opposite party to pay an amount Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant towards mental agony;
- To direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation to the complainant;
- Cost of the complainant be awarded;
And
(d) To grant such other relief or reliefs as the Hon’ble Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is as under:- During the year 2003, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kallur has issued N.O.C in favour of some persons in respect of Government Land belonging to Irrigation Department. The District Collector, Kurnool in W.P.No.17263 of 2009 filed counter affidavit stating that the land to which the M.R.O issued N.O.C. belongs to the Irrigation Department. There after the complainant submitted a representation dated 07-05-2010 before the opposite party with a request to cancel the proceedings dated 09-12-2003 issued by the M.R.O. On 03-06-2010 the complainant sought information under right to information Act, 2005, as to what action was taken on the representation dated 07-05-2010. The opposite party having received the said representation did not furnish the information as required under right to information Act. The action of the opposite party amounts to gross negligence. An account of deficiency of service the complainant suffered mentally. Hence the complaint.
3. The opposite party was called absent.
4. On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1and A2 are marked and sworn affidavit of the complainant is filed.
5. Complainant filed written arguments.
6. The points that arise for consideration are:
- Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?
(c) To what relief?
7. POINT No.1 & 2:- It is the case of the complainant that M.R.O. Kallur issued no objection certificate in favour of some persons in respect of the Government Land belonging to irrigation department. The complainant in his sworn affidavit clearly stated about issuance of no objection certificate by the M.R.O. Kallur for grant of loan by Andhra Bank. It is submitted that the District Collector filed counter in W.P.No.17263 of 2009 stating that the Revenue Department has no authority to alienate the land belonging to Irrigation Department. According to the complainant he made a representation to the opposite party on 07-05-2010 praying to cancel the proceedings dated 09-12-2003 issued by the M.R.O., granting N.O.C. to Andhra Bank for sanction of loan. The complainant filed Ex.A1 copy of representation sent to the opposite party on 07-05-2010. It is specific case of the complainant that on 03-06-2010 he sought information under right to information Act, 2005 regarding the representation dated 07-05-2010 and that the opposite party failed to furnish the said information. The complainant filed Ex.A2 copy of the representation dated 03-06-2010 seeking the information under right to information Act, 2005. It is clearly stated by the complainant in his sworn affidavit that he sent representation on 03-06-2010 seeking information under right to information Act. As seen from Ex.A2 it is very clear that the complainant sent the representation to R.D.O on 03-06-2010. As the opposite party failed to give information under right to information Act the complainant preferred the present complaint. The opposite party having received the notice did not choose to appear before the Forum to contest the matter. As seen from the evidence available on record it is very clear that the opposite party failed to furnish the information as requested by the complainant. There is negligence on the part of opposite party in giving information to the complainant under right to information Act. It amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Because of the negligence on the part of the opposite party in not furnishing the information, the complainant must have suffered mental. We think it is just and proper to direct the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.2,000/- for causing mental agony to the complainant.
8. In result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.2,000/- for causing mental agony to the complainant along with cost of Rs.500/-.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 9th day of March, 2011.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT MALE MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant: Nil For the opposite party: Nill
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Office copy of the representation letter
dated 07-05-2010.
Ex.A2 Office copy of the representation letter dated 03-06-2010 along with speed post receipt and photo copy of postal order.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite party:- Nill
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT MALE MEMBER
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
