Date of filing: 26-3-2014
Date of Order: 30-1-2015
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PERAMBALUR,
PRESENT:Thiru.P.G.RAJAGOPAL, B.A.B.L., PRESIDENT Thiru.S.BALASUBRAMANIYAM, M.A.M.L., MEMBER
CC/12/2012
FRIDAY, THE 6th DAY OF MARCH, 2015.
M. Balasubramaniyan,
D/o Gurusamy,
4/284.Malaveethi,
Thirumanur, 621715
Ariyalur -District. Complianant
Versus
Tmt. Hamalatha,
District Educational officer,
Public Information officer,
District Educational office,
Thirumanur-621715. Opposite Party
This complaint is coming for final hearing before us on Friday the, 30th Day of January, 2015 in the presence of Thiru.M.G.Balasubramaniyan, the complainant and the respondent having been set ex-parte this Forum passed the following.
ORDER
As regards the maintainability of the Complaint the complainant has contended stating that he has paid towards service charges for getting information apart from the sum of Rs.10/-paid on the application and hence he is the ‘consumer’ as defined under section (2)(d) 0f the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and as the opposite party has failed to furnish the information, he has committed deficiency service and therefore the complaint is maintainable before this Forum.
The Complainant has submitted the order of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi, on Revision petition No.1975/2005 in
Dr.S.P.Thirumala Rao Petitioner
Versus
Municipal commissioner,
Mysore City Municipal Corporation Respondent
and another judgment dated 5.11.1993 reported in 1994 SCC(1)243
Lucknow Development authority Petitioner
Versus
M,K,Guptha Respondent
But the said decisions have been overruled by the decisions of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi, reported in 1(2014) CPJ 444 in
S.Durairaj, Petitioner
Versus
Divisional personal Officer, Respondent
Southern Railway, Madurai,
and another decision of the Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2013(4) CPR 559in
Shri KaliRam Petitioner
Versus
State Public Information Officer,
Cum Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Respondent
In which the Hon’ble National Commission has held that the Petitioner cannot be claimed to be Consumer under the Consumer Protection Act and there is remedy available for him to approach the appellate authority under section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Therefore the Complaint is dismissed as unsustainable before this Form.
Sd Sd
MEMBER PRESIDENT
