BEFORE THE MANDYA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANDYA<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. A.T.MUNNOLI, B.A., LLB., President,<br /> <br /> 2. M.N.MANOHARA, B.A., LLB., Member,<br /> <br /> 3. A.P.MAHADEVAMMA, B.Sc., LLB., Member,<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complaint No.MDF/C.C.No.50/2010<br /> <br /> Order dated this the 24th day of August 2010<br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT/S Sri.Puttaswamy S/o Late Channaiah, Kagehallada Doddi Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mandya District.<br /> (Sri.K.M.Ravikumar., Advocate)<br /> -Vs-<br /> OPPOSITE PARTY/S The Assistant Commissioner, <br /> Mandya Sub-Division, <br /> Office of the Deputy Commissioner,<br /> Mandya District.<br /> (Sri.S.L.Ramesh Babu., District Govt. Pleader)<br /> <br /> Date of complaint 28.04.2010<br /> Date of service of notice to OP 10.06.2010<br /> Date of order 24.08.2010<br /> Total Period 2 Months 14 days<br /> Result The Complaint is dismissed. There is no order as to costs. <br /> <br /> Sri.A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. The Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite party that the information sought under the Karnataka Right to Information Act, was not furnished.<br /> 2. The Opposite party in the version has denied the deficiency, contending that within the stipulated time, the Complainant was informed that the matter was referred to the Tahasildar to take appropriate action and on receipt of the report, further information will be furnished. <br /> 3. Both the parties in support of their respective contentions and allegations, have filed their affidavits and produced certain documents.<br /> 4. We have heard the arguments of both the learned counsel and perused the records.<br /> 5. Now, we have to consider - whether the Complainant has proved any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite party?<br /> 6. Our finding is in the negative, for the following.<br /> REASONS<br /> 7. The relevant facts are that according to the Complainant, he submitted a petition to the Opposite party dated 09.03.2010 to take criminal action against the Village Accountant by name Lingachari and Revenue Inspector Lakshmikanthachar. The Complainant filed application dated 08.04.2010 and sought information from the Opposite party as to what steps are taken in respect of the petition dated 09.03.2010. The Complainant has alleged that the Opposite party did not furnish proper information and hence, committed deficiency in service.<br /> 8. The Opposite party has contended that on receipt of the application of the Complainant dated 13.04.2010 seeking information as to what step was taken in respect of the petition dated 09.03.2010, an endorsement was sent to the Complainant on 15.04.2010 to the effect that earlier petition was sent to the concerned Tahasildar to take appropriate action and on receipt of the report from the Tahasildar, further steps in the matter will be taken. Hence, the deficiency alleged is denied. <br /> 9. The copy of the endorsement dated 15.04.2010 of the Opposite party addressed to the Complainant is placed on record. Further, the Opposite party has placed on record copy of the out-word register. In the out-word register, postal stamp of Rs.5/- has been debited. Thus, on the basis of these documents, the Opposite party contend that well within the stipulated time endorsement was sent to the Complainant. <br /> 10. Though, the Complainant has made an attempt to contend that he did not receive the said endorsement, even according to the Complainant, as alleged in the complaint and stated in the affidavit, the Opposite party did not furnish proper information. It goes to show that the information sent by the Opposite party was not proper or satisfactory according to the Complainant. Whether the information sent was proper or satisfactory is different aspect. Further more, the Opposite party is the Assistant Commissioner of Mandya Sub-Division, a Government Servant, in his affidavit, has sworn to that said endorsement was sent to the Complainant through post. To substantiate that fact, copy of the endorsement as well as out-word register are placed on record. Hence, we have no reason to disbelieve the said contention of the Opposite party. The fact that the endorsement was not sent through RPAD, does not mean that the Opposite party had not at all sent the information to the Complainant. It is not mandatory on the part of the Opposite party to send the information through RPAD. Only material point that needs to be considered is, whether information was sent or not. Considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, we are of the opinion that the Opposite party made out that the endorsement was sent to the Complainant.<br /> 11. As regards, in-correct or unsatisfactory information, at this stage it is not necessary for us to narrate the entire facts alleged by the Complainant in his petition submitted to the Opposite party to take criminal action against the Village Accountant and Revenue Inspector. So far consent to the present case, we have to consider whether the information sent by the Opposite party to the Complainant is in-correct or otherwise. As could be seen from the records, on receipt of the petition of the Complainant in which certain allegations are made against the Village Accountant and the Revenue Inspector, the Assistant Commissioner forwarded it to the Tahasildar to take action in the matter. That fact was brought to the notice of the Complainant by the Opposite party, in the endorsement. Opposite party has further stated that soon after receipt of report from the Tahasildar, further information will be furnished. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the endorsement in question cannot be held as in-correct or unsatisfactory.<br /> 12. Considering the facts, evidence on record and discussion made here before, we are of the opinion that the Complainant has failed to prove the deficiency in service as alleged. According, we pass the following order:<br /> ORDER<br /> The complaint is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.<br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum this the 24th day of August 2010).<br /> <br /> (PRESIDENT) (MEMBER) (MEMBER)<br /> <br /> <br />