Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/55/2015

B.Karaunakar Reddy, S/o. B.Siva Sankar Reddy - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Tahsildar, Tirupati Rural Mandal - Opp.Party(s)

In person

15 Jun 2017

ORDER

Filing Date: 07.09.2015

Order Date:15.06.2017

 

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI

 

 

      PRESENT: Sri.M.Ramakrishnaiah, President ,

        Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

 

 

THURSDAY THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND AND SEVENTEEN

 

 

 

C.C.No.55/2015

 

 

Between

 

 

B.Karunakar Reddy,

S/o. B.Siva Sankar Reddy,

Occ: Business,

D.No.87-560-1, Srinagar Colony,

Near Nandyal Check Post,

Kurnool City.                                                                        … Complainant.

 

 

 

 

And

 

 

The Tahsildar,

Tirupati Rural Mandal,

Tirupati,

Chittoor District.                                                                  …  Opposite party.

 

 

 

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 07.06.17 and upon perusing the complaint, written version and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri.B.Karunakar Reddy, party-in-person for complainant, and Sri.B.Narahari Reddy, Assistant Government Pleader, counsel for opposite party, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SRI. M.RAMAKRISHNAIAH, PRESIDENT

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

           

            This complaint is filed under Section –12 of C.P.Act 1986, by the complainant  against the opposite party for the following reliefs 1) to direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and loss suffered by the complainant, 2) to grant the cost of the complaint, and 3) to grant such other relief or reliefs as the Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

            2.  The brief averments of the complaint are:- that the complainant purchased 0.58 cents of land in Sy.No.437/6 situated at Tiruchanur village, Tirupati rural mandal, Chittoor District, from N.Jayakantamma under registered sale deed dt:11.02.2011. The said Jayakantamma was granted ryotwari patta for the said land by the then Inams Deputy Tahsildar, Chittoor on 26.10.1979. The opposite party addressed a letter to the complainant, rejecting the claim of the complainant over the land stating that the ryotwari patta granted to Jayakantamma was cancelled by the Commissioner, Survey Settlement and Land Records, Hyderabad, vide Rc.No.15/82 Ref.No.V2/467/82 dt:06.05.1982. Infact the said cancellation proceedings were passed without any notice to any of the interested parties including the complainant’s vendor Jayakantamma. That the complainant after receipt of the letter dt:04.10.2014 from the opposite party, sought information under the provisions of RTI Act 2005 on 06.05.2015 by paying requisite fee to furnish the certified copies of a) proceedings cancelling the patta granted by Shaik kasumaiah, the then Deputy Tahsildar, b) certified copy of the list of pattas of lands given by Shaik Kasumaiah, c) how my patta was cancelled, as the patta was not given by Shaik Kasumaiah, but by P.V.Subbaiah Chowdary, and certified copies of the proceedings relating to the cancellation. Since the complainant purchased the land from Jayakantamma, he is entitled to seek the said information, but the opposite party did not furnish the information required within the stipulated time of 30 days, but deliberately withheld the information, thereby the opposite party committed deficiency in service. Hence the complaint.       

            3.  The opposite party filed his written version denying the averments of the complaint and further contended that the complainant filed W.P.No.13613/2014 on the same issue and the same was disposed-off on 20.04.2014 at the admission stage by the Hon’ble High Court observing that “petitioner claims to have purchased the aforesaid land under the sale deed dt:11.02.2011, and thereafter he made a request for mutation of his name based on the said document. In the first paragraph of the petitioner representation it was stated that his vendor was granted ryotwari patta by the Deputy Tahsildar vide proceedings No.420 dt:26.10.1979. In view of that therefore I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the           2^nd respondent to examine the petitioner’s representation including the claim that his vendor Smt.N.Jayakantamma was granted ryotwari patta and thereafter to consider his request for mutation and pass appropriate orders thereon within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of”. The complainant filed Contempt Case No.1438/2014 in W.P.No.13613/2014 on the same issue, counter also filed and it is pending before the Hon’ble High Court. The complainant filed another W.P.No.26291/2013 on the same contention for the same land and the Hon’ble High Court issued interim order on 06.09.2013 in W.P.M.P.No.32509/2013 as follows – “In the light of the registered document supporting the claim of title put-forth by the petitioner, there shall be a direction to the respondents not to take any action in the matter except in accordance with the due procedure laid down by law”. The said writ petition is pending before the Hon’ble High Court. In addition to the above, the complainant has filed another W.P.No.35889/2014 before the Hon’ble High Court for the said land and the same is pending.

            4.  That the opposite party further contended that the claimed land is inam land and it is situated in Tiruchanur village, and the entire village has been declared as minor inam village as per available records. Therefore, it attracts the provisions of A.P. Inams (Abolition and conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1956. Under the said Act procedure is to be followed as prescribed therein under Section-3, an enquiry is to be conducted and to declare the claimed lands as to whether inam lands or not, whether in Inam village, Zamindari village and as to whether held by an institution or not etc. under Section-3(3) and decision is to be rendered by the Inams Tahsildar and publish the said decision in the District Gazette Under Section-3(6) of the said Act.

            5.  In this case, complainant is contending that he has purchased an extent of 0.58 cents in Sy.No.437/6 through registered document dt:11.02.2011 from N.Jayakanthamma, and she was granted ryotwari patta by the Inams Deputy Tahsildar, Chittoor vide proceedings dt:26.10.1979. As the then Inams Deputy Tahsildar, Sk. Kasumaiah, who worked during 1977-80 has not followed the procedure contemplated under Inams Act and issued ryotwari pattas on filing of mere applications. The then District Collector, Chittoor, on noticing such lapses and irregularities committed by Shaik Kasumaiah, the then Inams Deputy Tahsildar, has filed revision petition before the then Commissioner, Survey Settlement and Land Records, Hyderabad, and cancelled all the ryotwari pattas granted by Shaik Kasumaiah. The C.I.D. has launched a criminal case against the said Shaik Kasumaiah, who was convicted and dismissed from service. No person by name P.V.Subbaiah Chowdary worked as Inams Deputy Tahsildar during 1977-80 as alleged. For the first time the inam lands in Tiruchanur village were published in the District Gazette in the year 1984, prior to that no such procedure is followed. Therefore, the purported patta dt:20.10.1979 is a non-existing one and it is null and void. 

            6.  That the complainant or his vendor, who got rights over the said land are at liberty to file their claims before the Inams Deputy Tahsildar, Chittoor and seek for grant of ryotwari patta under the provisions of A.P.Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari ) Act 1956, by producing cognizable documentary evidence. Until they obtain ryotwari patta from the Inams Deputy Tahsildar, Chittoor, who is the designated officer, their name cannot be mutated in the revenue records; an endorsement has been issued accordingly. That the subject land is covered by W.P.No.26291/2013, C.C.No.1438/2014, W.P.No.35889/2014 filed by present petitioner and W.P.No.27113/2013 filed by N.Venkatesh, son of the alleged vendor of the complainant is pending disposal before the Hon’ble High Court.

            7.  The information sought for by the complainant under RTI Act is available with Inams Deputy Tahsildar, Chittoor. The complainant therefore has to approach the concerned authority i.e. Inams Deputy Tahsildar, who is another Public Information Officer and authority to supply copies of documents sought for. In the endorsement, it is clearly mentioned that the complainant has to approach the Inams Deputy Tahsildar, Chittoor, for redressal of his grievances under the provisions of A.P.Inams Act 1956. The opposite party cannot supply the documents relating to another authority. The complainant instead of approaching the competent authority is filing number of cases and making litigations. The complainant without availing the remedy under Section-19 in Chapter-V of R.T.I. Act 2005, by filing appeal or revision before the concerned authority approached this Forum. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Complaint is not maintainable and complainant is not entitled for the reliefs of compensation sought for and prays the Forum to dismiss the complaint with costs.

            8.  The complainant filed his evidence affidavit as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A4. R.W.1 filed his evidence affidavit and got marked Exs.B1 and B2. Both parties have filed their respective written arguments.

            9.  Now the points for consideration are:-

(i)  Whether the complainant has filed his application under the provisions of

      RTI Act 2005 for furnishing certified copies of certain documents before   

      the competent authority? And whether deficiency in service can be

      attributed to the opposite party?

(ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to the compensation as prayed for?

(iii) To what relief?

10. Point No.(i):-  The nutshell of the case of the complainant is that he has purchased 0.58 cents of land in Sy.No.437/6 situated at Tiruchanur village, Tirupati rural mandal, Chittoor District, from Jayakantamma under registered sale deed dt:11.02.2011. That the said Jayakantamma was granted ryotwari patta for the said land by the then Inams Deputy Tahsildar, Chittoor on 26.10.1979. That the opposite party has addressed a letter to the complainant rejecting his claim over the land stating that ryotwari patta granted to Jayakantamma was cancelled by the Commissioner, Survey Settlement and Land Records, Hyderabad vide Rc.No.15/82 Ref.No.V2/467/82 dt:06.05.1982. The complainant is alleging that the said cancellation proceedings were passed without notice to any of the interested parties including Jayakantamma. No such objections were raised by Jayakanthamma during her life time or by any of the alleged interested persons ever since 1982. After receipt of the said letter dt:04.10.2014 from the opposite party, he sought information under the provisions of RTI Act 2005 on 06.05.2015 by paying requisite fee to furnish the certified copies of 1) proceedings cancelling the patta granted by Shaik Kasumaiah, the then Deputy Tahsildar, 2) list of pattas of lands given by Shaik Kasumaiah, 3) how my patta was cancelled as the patta was not given by Shaik Kasumaiah, but by P.V.Subbaiah Chowdary, and certified copies of the proceedings relating to the cancellation. For his application, the opposite party has given information to the effect that the opposite party is not competent authority to grant such certified copies of the documents required by the complainant. That the appropriate designated officer to grant such certified copies is the Inams Deputy Tahsildar, Chittoor. That the opposite party is in no way concerned in that regard. The opposite party further contended in its written version that the land claimed is a Inam land and it is situated in Tiruchanur village, and entire village has been declared as minor inam village as per available records. Therefore, it attracts the provisions of A.P.Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1956. The then Inams Deputy Tahsildar Sk. Kasumaiah, issued number of pattas only on mere applications without following due process of law and procedure contemplated under Sectoin-3 of the said Act, and without making any enquiries. Therefore, the District Collector, Chittoor, having came to know about the irregularities committed by the then Inams Deputy Tahsildar, has filed revision petition before the then Commissioner, Survey Settlement and Land Records, Hyderabad, on which the said Commissioner cancelled all the ryotwari pattas granted by Sk.kasumaiah. Later, the CID launched criminal proceedings against Kasumaiah. He was convicted and dismissed from service for his latches. That it further contended that no person by name P.V.Subbaiah Chowdary, worked as Inams Deputy Tahsildar during the period from 1977-80 as alleged by the complainant. For the first time the inam lands in Tiruchanur village were published in the District Gazette in the year 1984, prior to that no such procedure was followed. Therefore, the purported patta dt:20.10.1979 is a non-existing one and it is null and void. If the complainant or any other person has got any rights over the said land, they are at liberty to file the claim before the Inams Deputy Tahsildar, Chittoor and seek for grant of patta under the provisions of A.P. Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1956, by producing cognizable documentary evidence. Until they obtain patta from the concerned Inams Deputy Tahsildar, who is the designated officer, their names cannot be mutated. To that effect, an endorsement was also issued to the complainant under Ex.A1 equivalent to Ex.B1. Inspite of it, the complainant did not approach the concerned Inams Deputy Tahsildar for his redressal. The complainant did not refer the writ petitions he filed before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in his complaint and making efforts to build-up the case even without producing any sort of documentary evidence in proof of his title or his vendor’s title and also by suppressing the facts. 

11.  The complainant is claiming that he has filed the application before the opposite party for furnishing certified copies of the above said proceedings (a to c) under the provisions of RTI Act. So far the opposite party did not furnish those documents. Thus the opposite party caused mental agony and became liable to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant. The settled proposition of law is that the complainant is expected to approach the appropriate and competent authority for getting certified copies of those documents he require. Along with his application, he also has to file relevant documentary evidence through which he got title or right over the said land. In this regard, the complainant relied on a decision of the Hon’ble National Commission reported in Laws (NCD)-1991-4-8 / CPJ-1991-2-333 – Chintamani Mishra Vs. Tahsildar, Khandapara. The brief facts of the said decision are – that the Tahasildar, Khandapara, is custodian of records of vesting case No.1/1987 and O.P.L.R. Case No.214/1959. The appellant / complainant filed copy application No.881/1989 on 25.09.1989 to get certified copy of the order in vesting case No.1/1987 and made such application No.1071 on 19.12.1989 to get certified copy of order in O.P.L.R Case No.214/1959. It was indicated in the receipt that copy in Application No.881/1989 shall be supplied on 05.01.1990. Since copies were not supplied, complainant had to go from Cuttuck where he is serving to Khandapara about 16 times to come back disappointed. Complainant addressed petitions to Sub-Collector, Nayagarh, who is the immediate superior and controlling authority of Tahasildar and to District Collector who is the next superior authority and in overall charge of the district administration making grievance of non-availability of certified copies, which were sent by registered post and have been received by them. Inspite of it when each of the three officers remained silent and complainant could not get the service of supply of certified copies for which payments have been made, the complaint was filed on 24.11.1990. Notices have been sent to the opposite parties by the Commission through registered post and they have received the same. Despite receipt of notice, no opposite party has entered appearance or stated its case. Accordingly, heard the case exparte. Assertions in complaint petition are corroborated by documents. The complainant has made proper application for certified copies and has been assured to be supplied with the copies on 30.09.1989 and 05.01.1990 as indicated in the receipts granted for the purpose. The grievances made to opposite parties have remained unheeded. The question is whether the complainant is a consumer under the C.P.Act 1986 and whether there is deficiency in service by the opposite parties. In this regard, their Lordships held that complainant is a consumer. He has to avail the services of opposite parties as per Section-1(3), Section-2(o) of the C.P.Act 1986. Fee is that which is paid for the service to be rendered, grant of certified copy is a service rendered on payment for conveying information in respect of contents of a document. Since complainant has paid for such service to be rendered, he is a consumer and can make a complaint under the Act where there is deficiency in service.

12.  In the above said decision, the Tahsildar, Khandapara is the custodian  of the documents. That assertions in the complaint are corroborated by documents. He has made application before proper authority. Whereas in the case on hand, no doubt the complainant is a consumer as he has paid to avail the services of opposite party. He made the application seeking certified copies of documents referred to above i.e. regarding patta said to have been granted, before the opposite party Tahsildar, Tirupati Rural Mandal, who is not the custodian of the said documents. The complainant did not mention for what purpose he made the application and nature of application before the opposite party prior to 04.10.2014 either in the complaint or in his affidavit.

13.  The custodian of the said documents is the Inams Deputy Tahsildar, Chittoor, as per endorsement under Ex.A1 / Ex.B1. Therefore, it can be safely held that the opposite party i.e. Tahsildar, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District, is not the custodian of the documents of which certified copies are sought for by the complainant. That apart, his application submitted before the opposite party or before this Forum was not accompanied by or corroborated by any document / documentary evidence. Therefore, presentation of application by the complainant for certified copies of such documents before the opposite party itself is improper, as opposite party is not the competent and designated authority to grant such certified copies and he is also not the custodian of the said documents. As such the facts of the above decision are quite different from that of the facts of the case on hand.

14.  When the application is filed by the complainant before the opposite party, who is neither the custodian nor the competent authority to grant certified copies of the documents sought for, “deficiency in service” cannot be attributed to the opposite party. Having filed the application for certified copies before the non-competent authority / non-custodian of the documents, the complainant cannot seek compensation against the opposite party herein. Though the opposite party has specifically informed the complainant under Ex.A1 / Ex.B1 that the documents required by the complainant are very much available with the Inams Deputy Tahsildar, Chittoor, and he was advised to approach the Inams Deputy Tahsildar, Chittoor, for getting certified copies, for the reasons best known the complainant did not approach the Inams Deputy Tahsildar, Chittoor. Apart from it, an important aspect is that the complainant did not file the alleged sale deed dt:11.02.2011, under which he said to have been purchased 0.58 cents in Sy.No.437/6 of Tiruchanur village from Jayakantamma. Similarly, he also not filed the title deed or link document in the name of Jayakantamma, who is the alleged vendor. Another important point for consideration is according to complainant, Jayakantamma was granted ryotwari patta by the then Inams Deputy Tahsildar, Chittoor on 26.10.1979, in support of this contention no scrap of paper is filed. The alleged pattas said to have been granted by the then Inams Deputy Tahsildar, Chittoor, were cancelled by the Commissioner, Survey Settlement and Land Records in the year 1982 vide orders in Rc.No.15/82 Ref.No.V2/467/82 dt:06.05.1982. The complainant alleged that he purchased the land in an extent of 0.58 cents in Sy.No.437/6 under the registered sale deed on 11.02.2011 i.e. nearly 29 years after cancellation of the patta, he said to have been purchased the land. The buyer is expected to enquire into the facts with regard to ownership, title, right or possession over the said land by his vendor Jayakantamma before purchase the land. If he satisfied that Jayakantamma got all the above rights and title as well over the land, then he would have purchased the land, but without filing any such sale deed dt:11.02.2011, simply he is claiming that he is the owner of the land and he has purchased the land under registered sale deed. Jayakantamma cannot transfer title or right or interest what she does not have. What is the claim of the complainant before opposite party prior to 04.10.2014? Therefore, the complainant claim itself appears to be a frivolous and baseless. He also relied on another decisions reported in (2012) 2 SCC 506 National Seeds Corporation Limited Vs. M.madhusudhan Reddy and Another, and also relied on another decision reported in (2011) 8 SCC 249 Ram Rameshwari Devi and Others Vs. Nirmala Devi and Others. The National Seeds case relates to selling sub-standard and defective seeds by the Government Company causing loss to the farmers. The Ram Rameshwari Devi case is in respect of a house, which was allotted by Government in favour of one R (one of the respondents, since deceased) in 1952 and the lease deed was executed in his favour in 1964. On human considerations of shelter, R allowed his three younger brothers (the appellants) to reside with him in the house. The appellants filed a suit in 1977 in the High court claiming that the house belonged to a joint hindu family and sought partition of the property on that basis. The suit was dismissed by the single judge of the High Court in 1982. The appellants filed a regular first appeal which was dismissed in 2000.  Against the concurrent findings of both the judgments, the appellants filed a special leave petition, which was also dismissed by the Supreme Court in 2001. The facts of both the decisions are not applicable to the case on hand. He also relied on another decision reported in III (2012) CPJ 72 (NC) S.P.Thirumala Rao (DR) – Vs. Mysore City Municipal Corporation in which their Lordships held that Karnataka Right to Information Act 2002, Sections-11, 10, 7 – Jurisdiction – Information not furnished under the Act 2002, Section-3 of C.P.Act 1986 – Consumer Fora has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint when information sought was not furnished, for deficiency in service. No doubt the complainant is a consumer but he has chosen a non-competent authority and non-custodian for supply of certified copies of documents he sought for. He also relied on another decision reported in (2011) 10 Supreme Court Cases 316 – Trans Mediterrane Airways Vs. Universal Exports and Another. The facts are quite different from that of the facts of the case on hand and it is not helpful to this case. Under the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the complainant failed to establish that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, that the complainant has filed the application for supply of certified copies of certain documents before the opposite party, who is neither the designated officer nor competent authority / custodian of the documents. Accordingly this point is answered.  

15. Point No.(ii):- in view of our discussion on point No.1, and as the complainant has failed to file the registered sale deed dt:11.02.2011 and the title deed of his vendor Smt.N.Jayakantamma or any other document to prove that Jayakantamma has got title, right, interest or possession and enjoyment over the property in question at any point of time or to prove that the complainant has got any right, title or interest over the said land, it appears that about 29 years after cancellation of patta, said to have been issued in favour of Jayakantamma, complainant is alleging that he has purchased the said land. According to the opposite party, the land is a Inam land, unless the complainant or any other person, who got title over the property or right over the property, obtained patta from the competent designated authority i.e. The Inams Deputy Tahsildar, Chittoor, his name or their names cannot be mutated. The opposite party rightly taken the plea that the Inams Deputy Tahsildar, Chittoor is only the competent authority, to that effect they have also issued endorsement under Ex.A1 in Roc.(A)/423/2014 dt:04.10.2014, which is equivalent to Ex.B1. Another document filed by the complainant is Ex.A2 photocopy of the representation of the complainant to the opposite party dt:06.05.2015. Ex.A3 is the photocopy of Indian Postal Order for Rs.10/- in favour of opposite party dt:07.05.2015. Ex.A4 is order of A.P. Information Commission in Complaint No.18627/SIC-LTK/2016 dt:26.10.2016. Though the opposite party has given the endorsement in the year 2014, it seems so far the complainant has not approached the competent authority i.e. the Inams Deputy Tahsildar, Chittoor for redressal.

16. It is also mentioned by the opposite party that the complainant has filed the W.P.No.13613/2014 before the Hon’ble High Court on the same issue and the same was disposed off on 20.04.2014 at the admission stage observing that “Petitioner claims to have purchased the aforesaid land under the sale deed, dated 11.02.2011, and thereafter, he made a request for mutation of his name based on the said document. In the first paragraph of the petitioner’s representation, it was stated that his vendor was granted ryotwari patta by the Deputy Tahsildar vide proceedings No.420 dt:26.10.1979. In view of that, therefore, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the 2^nd respondent to examine the petitioner’s representation including the claim that his vendor Smt.N.Jayakantamma was granted ryotwari patta and thereafter to consider his request for mutation and pass appropriate orders thereon, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order”. That the complainant also filed Contempt Case No.1438/2014 in W.P.No.13613/2014 on the same issue and the same is pending before the Hon’ble High Court. The complainant also filed another W.P.No.26291/2013 on the same contention for the same land and the Hon’ble High Court issued interim order on 06.09.2013 in W.P.M.P.No.32509/2013 that “In the light of the registered document supporting the claim of the title put-forth by the petitioner, there shall be a direction to the respondents not to take any action in the matter except in accordance with the due procedure laid down by law”. The said writ petition is pending before the Hon’ble High Court. In addition to the above, the complainant filed another W.P.No.35889/2014 before the Hon’ble High Court for the same subject land and the same is pending. N.Venkatesh S/o. Jayakantamma has filed W.P.No.27113/2013, in which the Hon’ble High Court issued interim order dt:17.09.2013 in WPMP No.33576/2013 in WP No.27113/2013 holding that “Any action contemplated by the respondents in connection with the subject lands shall be in accordance with the due procedure laid down by law”. The said writ petition is also pending before the Hon’ble High Court. The complainant having filed number of writ petitions before the Hon’ble High Court, not in a position to wait till the writ petitions are disposed off by the Hon’ble High Court, and filed the complaint before this Forum against the opposite party alleging that the opposite party failed to furnish the certified copies of the documents sought for by him, having known pretty well that the opposite party is not competent authority and custodian of those documents, even on receiving Ex.A1 dt:04.10.2014 and claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and costs. Under the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the complainant is not entitled for the reliefs sought for. Accordingly, this point is answered.

17.  Point No.(iii):- in view of our discussion made under points 1 and 2, we are of the opinion that the complaint suffers from suppression of facts and it is devoid of merits and the complainant failed to make-out a case that the opposite party is a competent authority and custodian of the documents sought for, and that the opposite party inspite of it failed to furnish the certified copies of the documents sought for and also failed to prove that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and also failed to establish that the complainant is entitled for the compensation and complaint therefore is liable to be dismissed.

In the result, complaint is dismissed. No costs.                                                            

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 15^th day of June, 2017.

 

       Sd/-                                                                                                                      Sd/-                                

Lady Member                                                                                                      President

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant/s.

 

PW-1:   B.Karunakar Reddy (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite Party/s.

 

RW-1:  M.Kiran Kumar (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/S

 

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Photocopy of the endorsement of the opposite party dt:04.10.2014.
	Photocopy of the representation under the RTI Act dt:06.05.2015.
	Photocopy of the Indian Postal Order No.21F628510 dt:07.05.2015
	State Information Commissioner, A.P.Information Commission, Hyderabad, issued an order regarding RTI Act.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/S

 

 

Exhibits   (Ex.B)	Description of Documents
1.	Photocopy (Attested) of Endorsement dt:04.10.2014.
2.	Photocopy (Attested) of Endorsement dt:03.08.2015.

 

                                                                                                                                                                Sd/- 

                                                                                                                      President

      // TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

             Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

   

           Copies to:-      1.  The complainant.

                                   2.  The opposite party.