BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD.

F.A.No.177/2013 against C.C.No.121/2012 District Forum, SRIKAKULAM.

Between

The Chairman, Indian Red Cross

Society, opposite Bapuji Kala Mandir,

Palakonda Road, Srikakulam.                                    Appellant/

                                                                             Opp.party No.3  

And

1.   Bendalam Krishna Rao S/o.late Appa Rao

Bureau Incharge, Andhra Jyothi Daily

Newspaper, Near Head Post Office,

Srikakulam.                                                        Respondent/

                                                                             Complainant

2.   The Information Officer/District Revenue Officer,

District Collector’s office, Srikakulam.             Respondent/

                                                                             OP No.1

3.   Appellate Authority-cum-Additional Joint

Collector, District Collector’s office,

Srikakulam.                                                        Respondent/

                                                                                       OP 2                                       

(Respondents 2 and 3 are not necessary parties)

Counsel for the Appellant      :  M/s S.Subrahmanya Reddy

Counsel for the Respondent:  - respondent served.

F.A.No.178/2013 against C.C.No.122/2012 District Forum, SRIKAKULAM.

Between

The Chairman, Indian Red Cross

Society, opposite Bapuji Kala Mandir,

Palakonda Road, Srikakulam.                                    Appellant/

                                                                             Opp.party No.2 

And

1.     Kommajoshyula Vasanth Kumar

  S/o.late Seetharama Murthy,

  R/o.Dayalnagar, Sathsang Colony

  Thotapalem (PO), Gujarathipeta (SO)

Srikakulam.532 005                                          Respondent/

                                                                             Complainant

2.   General Secretary/Appellate Officer,

Indian Red Cross Society, AP State

Government, D.No.3-6-212, Street No.15,

Himayathnagar, Hyderabad-500 029                  Respondent/OP 1

(Respondent 2 is not necessary party)

Counsel for the Appellant      :  M/s S.Subrahmanya Reddy

Counsel for the Respondent:  Mr.A.Rama Rao.

QUORUM:  SMT.M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE Incharge President

AND

SRI S.BHUJANGA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER.

MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JUlY

TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN

Order (Per Smt.M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Incharge President)

***

        Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.121/2012 on the file of District Forum, Srikakulam, the opposite party No.3 preferred this appeal.

        The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant filed an application on 22-5-2012 requesting the opposite parties to furnish information under RTI Act regarding Indian Red cross Society from 2007 to 2012, 31^st income, expenditure, details of activities, what was the expenditure for conducting activities, how much amount was received from various societies, name of the individuals and institutions, how many patients were given  medical service through Ambulance for the last 5 years, what was the expenditure for that purpose data-wise.   The complainant submitted that his application was forwarded the same to opposite party No.3 to furnish the information as per RTI Act within 30 days and even after 30 days from the date of his application, the information was not furnished by 3^rd opposite party.  Therefore the complainant submitted that he preferred an appeal to opposite party No.2 and the opposite party No.2 also kept the appeal within him for 45 days and on 30-6-2012, the opposite party No.3 informed to the complainant that the Red Cross society does not come within the purview of  RTI Act.  Hence the complainant filed the complaint contending that when the society is availing funds from State and Central Governments, it is not known as to why it does not come under RTI Act?

        OPs filed separate counters stating that after ascertaining that IRCS also comes under RTI Act, requested the complainant to comply with the requirements.  But the complainant refused to pay the required amount.  OP 2 further submits that the Red Cross society is a voluntary body rendering humanitarian services and that there is no deficiency in service on their behalf as the complainant did not pay the necessary amounts for furnishing information and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs as it is not maintainable.

        The District Forum based on evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A8 and B1 to B4 dismissed the complaint against OP1 but directed Ops 2 & 3 to furnish the information as requested by the complainant in his complaint with compensation of Rs.5,000/-, costs of Rs.1500/- including advocate fee of Rs.750/- to be paid within 45 days.  The District Forum also directed that compensation and costs shall be payable by OP 3 initially and the same be recovered from the erring employees who are not responsible for not furnishing the information.

        Aggrieved by the said order, OP 3 preferred this appeal.

        The learned counsel for the appellant/OP 3 submitted that U/s.22 of RTI Act, the complainant has to seek redressal only under the RTI Act and that Consumer Fora do not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  When an appeal is provided against non-furnishing of information by the Public Information Officer under the RTI Act, the only recourse for the complainant is to approach the appellate authorities under the RTI Act. We find force in this contention and rely on the judgement of National Commission in T.Pundalika V. Reveue  Department (Service Division) Government of Karnataka in RP No.4061/2010  dated 31-3-2011 in which the National Commission held as follows:

‘Petitioner in order to sort out the controversy with respect to his pensionary benefits, filed an application under Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the ATI Act, 2005) in the office of Opposite Party No.4. Opposite Party No.4 failed to provide the information. Petitioner then filed the complaint before the District Forum, which was allowed and a direction was issued to opposite party No.4 to furnish the required information.

          Respondent, being aggrieved, filed an appeal before the State Commission, which has been allowed by observing thus:

          “At the outset it is not in dispute that complainant had filed an application u/s 6 & 7 of the Right to Information Act to the OP.No.4. But complainant cannot be considered as a consumer as defined under the C.P. Act since there is a remedy available for the complainant to approach the appellate authority u/s. 19 of the RTI Act, 2005.”

          We agree with the view taken by the fora below. Petitioner cannot be claimed to be a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. There is a remedy available for him to approach the Appellant Authority under section 19 of the RTI Act, 2005.”

        Keeping in view the aforementioned judgment, we hold  that the Consumer Fora do not have jurisdiction to entertain this complaint and this appeal is allowed and the order of the District forum is set aside and consequently the complaint is dismissed.  There shall be no order as to costs.

F.A.No.178/2013:

        For the same reasons as stated in F.A.No.177/2013, this appeal is  allowed and the order of the District forum is set aside and consequently the complaint is dismissed.  There shall be no order as to costs.

                                                                INCHARGE PRESIDENT.

                                                                MEMBER.

JM                                                             Dt.29-7-2013.