By. Sri. Chandran Alachery, Member:
The complaint is filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act of 1986 for an Order directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.21,000/- towards compensation for the loss sustained to the complainant due to the deficiency of service of opposite party.
2. Brief of the complaint:- The complainant was doing driver job in several vehicles in Collectorate Wayanad on daily wages. The complainant submitted an application on 17.07.2013 under Right to Information Act 2005 to the opposite party for getting the copy of log book with respect to KL 12 F 3915 vehicle during the period from 15.01.2012 to 04.04.2013. In response to the application, on 16.08.2013 the opposite party send a notice to the complainant vide No. M3-2013/29893/12 on 20.11.2013 demanding the complainant to remit Rs.2,571/- for getting the documents. Under T.A and D.A basis the complainant is entitled to get Rs.9,300/- from the department. But instead of giving the amount, the complainant was dismissed from the duty by the concerned department. The non-giving of required copies under R.T.I Act and the behavior and act of opposite party caused much mental agony and financial loss to the complainant. Hence the complaint is filed for redressal of his grievances.
3. On receipt of complaint, notice was issued to opposite party and opposite party appeared before the Forum and filed version. In the version the opposite party contented that the complaint is not coming under the jurisdiction of Consumer Forum. The complainant had option to approach the Appellate Authority, the Deputy Collector(General) for appeal. Hence the complaint is not maintainable before the Forum. The complainant have to implead proper authority in the complaint in order to get remedy. This opposite party is nothing to do with it. The complainant filed application on 17.07.2013 without remitting the required fees. So the opposite party send reply on 16.08.2013 vide No. M3-2013/21121/12 demanding the complainant either to remit fees or to produce declaration for fees exemption if he is entitled for that. But the complainant did not acted upon. The complainant then filed another application on 21.10.2013 affixing required stamp. Then the opposite party send reply to complainant demanding the complainant to remit Rs.2,571/- as fees for getting copies as per rule. The complainant did not pay the fees but filed complaint before the Forum. So the complaint is not maintainable before the Forum.
4. On perusal of complaint, version and documents, the Forum raised the following points for consideration:-
1. Whether the complaint is maintainable before the Forum?
2. Whether there is any deficiency of service from the part of opposite party?.
3. Relief and Cost.
5. Point No.1:- Under Right to Information Act, the applicant can either file appeal before the appellate Authority if information is not received. The complainant can approach the Consumer Forum as an additional remedy for the redressal of grievances if there is deficiency of service. So the complaint is maintainable before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.
6. Point No.2:- In addition to complaint, complainant filed proof affidavit and produced documents. The complainant is examined as PW1 and documents marked as Ext.A1 to Ext.A6.
Opposite party also filed proof affidavit and opposite party is examined as OPW1 and Ext.B1 is marked. Ext.A1 is the copy of 1st application under Right to Information Act. Ext.A2 is the copy of Reply letter send by opposite party. Ext.A3 is the copy of 2nd application with sufficient stamp affixed. In the 2nd application, the complainant applied for getting details of log book of vehicles during the period 01.01.2012 to 30.06.2013 in which the complainant worked. The opposite party send reply to the 2nd application on 20.11.2013, in which it is stated that the opposite party had conducted search for the log book of KL 12 F 3915 vehicle during the period from 01.12.2012 to 11.09.2012 and it is not found out. For the rest of the information, the complainant have to remit an amount of Rs.2,571/- as required fees, which is marked as Ext.A4. The complainant did not remit the amount since the reply is confusing but filed complaint before the Forum. On perusal of the Ext.A4 document it is seen that the date shown is in anti clock wise and it is wrong. The complainant demanded the details of the above vehicle during the period from 01.01.2012 to 30.06.2013 ie after 18 months. But the reply send to the complainant by opposite party is not clear. According to the complainant, that is the reason for the non remittance of required fees by the complainant. The Forum is of the opinion that the reply send by the opposite party is not self explanatory and is a confusing one even in the version/affidavit the same mistake happened. It is seen that the opposite party gave Ext.B1 reply on 22.02.2014 in response to an application dated 21.10.2013 ie after 4 months. There is correction in the date of Ext.B1 also and the case of the complainant is that the complainant did not receive such a reply. So by analyzing all these evidences and documents the Forum found that there is clear latches on the part of opposite party in dealing with the matter. The Forum analyzed that this opposite party has nothing to do with the payment of due amount of T.A and D.A to the complainant. This opposite party is not the officer who is to disburse the T.A and D.A to the complainant and this opposite party is not the officer who removed the complainant from service. The Forum found that the deficiency of service done by the opposite party is only with regard to the non-issue of required copies on an application under Right to Information Act. The Point No.2 is found accordingly.
7. Point No.3:- Since the Forum found that there is deficiency of service from the part of opposite party, the complainant is entitled to get cost and compensation. The Point No.3 is decided accordingly.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite party is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) to the complainant as compensation. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) as cost of the proceedings. The opposite party shall comply the Order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this Order, failing which the complainant is entitled to get 12% interest for the whole amount thereafter.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 21st day of November 2014.
Date of Filing:02.12.2013.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:
PW1. K. K. Divarakaran. Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:
OPW1. M. Padmakumar. Junior Superintendent, M Section, Collectorate,
Wayanad.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Copy of Right to Information Application. Dt:17.07.2013.
A2. Reply to Right to information Application. Dt:16.08.2013.
A3. Copy of Right to Information Application. Dt:21.10.2013.
A4. Reply to Right to information Application. Dt:20.11.2013.
A5(a). Proceedings of District Collector Wayanad. Dt:30.06.2011.
A5(b). Notice. Dt:08.08.2011.
A5(c). Copy of letter. Dt:26.04.2011.
A5(d). Copy of Government Order Dt:02.05.2011.
A5(e). Slip for Officers on counting duty.
A6. Copy of Certificate. Dt:30.11.2010.
Exhibits for the opposite Parties.
B1. Reply to Right to Right to Information Application. Dt:28.02.2014.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
