1. RTI is a service provider under Consumer Protection Act 1986. Information seeker under RTI is a consumer of public authority under Consumer Protection Act 1986. The is in addition to remedies available under Right to Information Act. As such, District Consumer Forum and State/National Consumer Commissions have jurisdiction to try complaints relating to deficiency in service concerning RTI.
2. Non-supply of information or supply of defective, incomplete, misleading information, would amount to deficiency in service by the public authority under the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
3. Supply of information beyond time limit fixed by RTI Acts would also amount to deficiency in service by the public authority.
4. In State Commissions Payment of compensation, damages, expenses to information seeker is rare under RTI Act(based on the jduges), but in general it is allowed under Consumer Protection Act 1986 of which applicant(information seeker) can claim the same.
5. Information seeker under RTI can obtain appropriate directions to the public authority from Consumer Forum/ Commissions under the Consumer Protection Act 1986, for removing deficiency in service.
6. Provisions of Consumer Protection Act 1986 can reasonably be extended to first appeal since appeal is an extension of RTI application.
7. In State Commissions Payment of compensation, damages, expenses to information seeker is rarity under RTI Acts, while it is normally allowed under Consumer Protection Act 1986.
8. Applicants under earlier RTI Acts of various States and of Right to Information Act 2005 can avail this additional remedy against public authority.
9. Consumer Protection Act 1986 can also be invoked against SICs [specially for delay in decision] where fees are to be paid for second appeal/complaint. Some one can try this remedy against CIC and also SICs, where fees are not required to be paid for second appeal or complaint.
10. CIC and all SICs can be proceeded against under Consumer Protection Act 1986 for deficiency in supply of their own information.
Landmark Judgement:
REVISION PETITION NO. 1975 OF 2005
(Against the order dated 1.10.05 in Appeal No.244/04 of the State Commission, Karnataka)
Dr. S.P. Thirumala Rao
Consultant Physician
No.1138/3, Narayanasastry Road
Devaraja Mohalla ........ Petitioner
Mysore – 570 001
Vs.
Municipal Commissioner
Mysore City Municipal Corporation
Sayyaji Rao Road.
Mysore – 570 024 …….Respondent
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA,
PRESIDING MEMBER
HON’BLE MR. S.K. NAIK, MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr. Aditya Narain, Advocate
Ms. Astha Tyagi, Advocate
For the Respondent : NEMO
Pronounced on : 28th May, 2009
ORDER
The District Forum had dealt with the objections raised by the opposite party regarding bar of jurisdiction of Courts under Section 10 of the Act as also the overriding affect of the Act. The State Commission in the impugned order did not at all refer to the findings of the District Forum on the said issues but allowed the appeal only on the ground that once the complainant had already availed remedy under the said Act and appeal is provided therein, the complainant cannot maintain a complaint under the CP Act. We may at this stage point out that the findings of the District Forum with reference to Section 10 & 11 are supported by reasons which do not call for any interference. In fact, the view taken by the District Forum is in consonance with the rulings of this Commission in the case of Smt. Kalawati (Supra) and Smt. Ushal Rani Aggarwal (Supra). We entirely agree with the reasoning of District Forum on this aspect. Though, the said Act provides for penalties under Section 9 of the said Act on the competent authority, yet, the Act does not provide for any remedy to the consumers who have sought information under the said Act for deficiency of service in the nature of compensation or damages for not furnishing the informations ought to which they are entitled to get under the said Act. Section 3 of the CPA provides additional remedy in addition to the remedies provided under other Acts and it is not in derogation of any provisions of any law. The Consumer Fora has, therefore, jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in respect of deficiency of service in the given facts especially when information sought was not furnished. The competent authority was required to give information within 15 days of the application in terms of Section 5 of the said Act. However, the said information was not furnished. The complainant had approached the District Forum claiming compensation/damages for deficiency of service. Even though, further remedy may be available to the applicant in case information is not supplied in terms of Section 5 of the Act within 15 days, yet, there is no bar to approach the District Forum for deficiency of service. The remedy under the said Act would take care of disciplinary action and penalty against the competent authority in not furnishing the information but no remedy is provided under the said Act to the applicant seeking information therein if information sought is not provided resulting in deficiency of service on that count. The applicant had paid a fee of Rs.10/- for seeking the said information. The case of the applicant would fall within the scope and ambit of Section 2(i)(o) of CP Act, which provides that service means service of any description which is made available to potential users, which include purveying of news or supplying of other information. The complainant had availed of the services under the said Act for consideration by paying fee and had sought information under the said Act, which was not supplied to him, which amounts to deficiency of service. The complainant is, thus, a consumer vis-à-vis information sought on payment under the said Act. In our view, therefore, the State Commission was wrong while holding that once the complainant had availed the remedy against which appeal was provided, he could not maintain a complaint under the CP Act.
For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order of the State Commission is liable to be set aside and the order of the District Forum is restored. In the facts and circumstances, we shall leave the parties to bear their own cost.
…………………..………J
(R.K. BATTA)
( PRESIDING MEMBER)
……………….……………
(S.K. NAIK)
MEMBER
k
2. Non-supply of information or supply of defective, incomplete, misleading information, would amount to deficiency in service by the public authority under the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
3. Supply of information beyond time limit fixed by RTI Acts would also amount to deficiency in service by the public authority.
4. In State Commissions Payment of compensation, damages, expenses to information seeker is rare under RTI Act(based on the jduges), but in general it is allowed under Consumer Protection Act 1986 of which applicant(information seeker) can claim the same.
5. Information seeker under RTI can obtain appropriate directions to the public authority from Consumer Forum/ Commissions under the Consumer Protection Act 1986, for removing deficiency in service.
6. Provisions of Consumer Protection Act 1986 can reasonably be extended to first appeal since appeal is an extension of RTI application.
7. In State Commissions Payment of compensation, damages, expenses to information seeker is rarity under RTI Acts, while it is normally allowed under Consumer Protection Act 1986.
8. Applicants under earlier RTI Acts of various States and of Right to Information Act 2005 can avail this additional remedy against public authority.
9. Consumer Protection Act 1986 can also be invoked against SICs [specially for delay in decision] where fees are to be paid for second appeal/complaint. Some one can try this remedy against CIC and also SICs, where fees are not required to be paid for second appeal or complaint.
10. CIC and all SICs can be proceeded against under Consumer Protection Act 1986 for deficiency in supply of their own information.
Landmark Judgement:
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 1975 OF 2005
(Against the order dated 1.10.05 in Appeal No.244/04 of the State Commission, Karnataka)
Dr. S.P. Thirumala Rao
Consultant Physician
No.1138/3, Narayanasastry Road
Devaraja Mohalla ........ Petitioner
Mysore – 570 001
Vs.
Municipal Commissioner
Mysore City Municipal Corporation
Sayyaji Rao Road.
Mysore – 570 024 …….Respondent
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA,
PRESIDING MEMBER
HON’BLE MR. S.K. NAIK, MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr. Aditya Narain, Advocate
Ms. Astha Tyagi, Advocate
For the Respondent : NEMO
Pronounced on : 28th May, 2009
ORDER
The District Forum had dealt with the objections raised by the opposite party regarding bar of jurisdiction of Courts under Section 10 of the Act as also the overriding affect of the Act. The State Commission in the impugned order did not at all refer to the findings of the District Forum on the said issues but allowed the appeal only on the ground that once the complainant had already availed remedy under the said Act and appeal is provided therein, the complainant cannot maintain a complaint under the CP Act. We may at this stage point out that the findings of the District Forum with reference to Section 10 & 11 are supported by reasons which do not call for any interference. In fact, the view taken by the District Forum is in consonance with the rulings of this Commission in the case of Smt. Kalawati (Supra) and Smt. Ushal Rani Aggarwal (Supra). We entirely agree with the reasoning of District Forum on this aspect. Though, the said Act provides for penalties under Section 9 of the said Act on the competent authority, yet, the Act does not provide for any remedy to the consumers who have sought information under the said Act for deficiency of service in the nature of compensation or damages for not furnishing the informations ought to which they are entitled to get under the said Act. Section 3 of the CPA provides additional remedy in addition to the remedies provided under other Acts and it is not in derogation of any provisions of any law. The Consumer Fora has, therefore, jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in respect of deficiency of service in the given facts especially when information sought was not furnished. The competent authority was required to give information within 15 days of the application in terms of Section 5 of the said Act. However, the said information was not furnished. The complainant had approached the District Forum claiming compensation/damages for deficiency of service. Even though, further remedy may be available to the applicant in case information is not supplied in terms of Section 5 of the Act within 15 days, yet, there is no bar to approach the District Forum for deficiency of service. The remedy under the said Act would take care of disciplinary action and penalty against the competent authority in not furnishing the information but no remedy is provided under the said Act to the applicant seeking information therein if information sought is not provided resulting in deficiency of service on that count. The applicant had paid a fee of Rs.10/- for seeking the said information. The case of the applicant would fall within the scope and ambit of Section 2(i)(o) of CP Act, which provides that service means service of any description which is made available to potential users, which include purveying of news or supplying of other information. The complainant had availed of the services under the said Act for consideration by paying fee and had sought information under the said Act, which was not supplied to him, which amounts to deficiency of service. The complainant is, thus, a consumer vis-à-vis information sought on payment under the said Act. In our view, therefore, the State Commission was wrong while holding that once the complainant had availed the remedy against which appeal was provided, he could not maintain a complaint under the CP Act.
For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order of the State Commission is liable to be set aside and the order of the District Forum is restored. In the facts and circumstances, we shall leave the parties to bear their own cost.
…………………..………J
(R.K. BATTA)
( PRESIDING MEMBER)
……………….……………
(S.K. NAIK)
MEMBER
k
No comments:
Post a Comment