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

Friday the 8^th day of July, 2011

C.C.No.153/2010

Between:

 B.Venkateswara Reddy, S/o. B.Venkata Reddy,

R/o H.No.40-836, Behind SBI Main Branch, N.R. Pet, Kurnool - 518004.

                                    …Complainant

                                       -Vs-

The Tahsildar,  Kallur Mandal,

D.No.80-130-11-1, Abbas Nagar, Kurnool – 518 002.                                               

        ...Opposite ParTy

This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri S.Babu Saheb, Advocate for complainant and Smt. D.S.Sai Leela, Government pleader for opposite party for upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.

             ORDER

                  (As per Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, President)

   C.C. No.153/2010

1.     This complaint is filed under section 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying to direct the opposite party:-

1. To pay the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant towards mental agony;

1. To pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation to the complainant;
2. To costs of the complaint be awarded;
   •  
3. To grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon’ble Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.                                 

2.    The case of the complainant in brief is as under:- The complainant is a journalist some realtors illegally encroached the Government land situated in Survey No.777 and 781 of Kallur Village.  On 30-04-2010 the complainant submitted representation under Right to Information Act 2005 to the opposite party seeking some information.   The opposite party having received the application of the complainant along with postal order did not give any information and made the complainant to go around her office. The action of the opposite party amounts to negligence.  An account of the deficiency of service the complainant has suffered a lot of mental agony.   Hence the complaint.

3.     Opposite party filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable. It is admitted that the complainant submitted application on 30-04-2010 along with application fee of Rs.10/- under Right to Information Act.  The opposite party furnished available information to the complainant.  There is a dispute between Rasool Khan and Guruvaiah Settee for construction of Apartment in Survey No.781 of Kallur Village.  The matter is pending before Honourable High Court of Andhra Pradesh.  The complainant is a petitioner in the writ petition on the file of High Court of Andhra Pradesh.  Since available information was furnished to the complainant, there is no negligence on the part of the opposite party.  The complainant has to file appeal before the appellant authority under Right to Information Act. The complainant is not entitled for any compensation. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.   

4.     On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 and A2 are marked and sworn affidavit of the complainant is filed. On behalf of the opposite party no document is marked.  Sworn affidavit of the opposite party is filed.

5.     Both sides filed written arguments.

6.     The points that arise for consideration are:

1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party?

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?

1. To what relief?

7.      POINT No.1:- Admittedly the complainant gave application dated 30-04-2010 to the opposite party seeking information under Right to Information Act 2005.  It is also admitted that the application was enclosed with a fee of Rs.10/- in the shape of postal order.  The complainant filed Ex.A1 copy of the application dated 30-04-2010 sent by him to the opposite party.  As seen from Ex.A1 it is very clear that the complainant requested some information regarding the land in survey No.781 of Kallur Village.  It is the case of the opposite party that the information that is available in the office was furnished to the complainant.  In the sworn affidavit of the opposite party also it is mentioned that available information was furnished to the complainant. The complainant nowhere admitted that he received the information sought from the opposite party.  The opposite party is not a position to say on which date the complainant was furnished the information required.  The opposite party has not furnished the dispatch number under which the complainant was given information sought by him.  Except the affidavit evidence of the opposite party there is no material on record to show that the complainant was furnished information regarding the land in survey No.781 of Kallur Village as required by him through his application.  No doubt the complainant got right to prefer an appeal against the orders of the opposite party under Right to Information Act.  Simply because the complainant did not prefer and appeal it cannot be said that the opposite party is not liable to pay compensation to the complainant.  The opposite party failed to show that she furnished the information required by the complainant under Right to Information Act.  The opposite party is negligent in dis charge her duties.  There is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.  The complainant claims compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- for mental agony.  There is no prayer to direct the opposite part y to furnish the information required the complainant is claiming compensation for mental agony.  There is no basis in claiming compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- for mental agony due to the negligence of the opposite party.  The complainant must have suffered from mental agony we think it is just and proper to direct the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.1,000/- in the circumstance.

8.     In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite party personally to pay to the complainant compensation of Rs.1,000/-  for mental agony 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 8^th day of July, 2011.

        Sd/-                                        Sd/-                                Sd/-

MALE MEMBER                      PRESIDENT                 LADY MEMBER

                                 APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

                                    Witnesses Examined

For the complainant : Nil                     For the opposite party : Nill

List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-

Ex.A1        Representation Letter of complainant to opposite party dated 30-04-2010.

Ex.A2.       Photo copy of Postal order containing to the opposite party.

List of exhibits marked for the opposite party:- Nill

        Sd/-                                  Sd/-                                     Sd/-

MALE MEMBER                 PRESIDENT                   LADY 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               :