BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD.
FA 550 of 2011 against C.C. 114/2010 ,
Dist. Forum, Guntur.
Between:
Pothireddipalli Sugunavati,
W/o. late P. V. Krishnaiah,
R/o. 5-35-10, 3/18, Brodiepet,
Guntur – 522002.
*** Appellant/
Complainant
And
Area Marketing Manager,
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,
First floor, Sripathi Venkatarao Mansion,
Tarbund x road, Bownepalli,
Secunderabad - 500 009.
*** Respondent/
O.P.
Counsel for the Appellant: P.I.P.
Counsel for the Respondent: M/s. O. Manohar Reddy
CORAM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
&
SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER
MONDAY, THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND TWELVE
ORAL ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D.Appa Rao, President )
***
1) Heard the appellant party-in-person, and the learned advocate for the respondent.
2) The case of the complainant in brief is that she sought for information under Right to Information Act, which was denied. Thereupon she filed complaint before the Dist. Forum for the following reliefs:
“The complainant submits that the entire correspondence revolved round the property leased to Op by complainant’s family for their retail outlet at Guntur and as such the complaint is within jurisdiction of Hon’ble Forum. The applicant has remitted Rs. 100/- as service charges and as applicant RTI she had every right for information as per CIC’s decision. Due to negligence and deficiency of service she has incurred severe damages as shown in Annexure-B. Hence complainant humbly prays the Hon’ble Forum for furnishing of information as per RTI Act, costs as per RTI Act, and damages of Rs. 14 lakhs suffered as per Annexure-B”.
3) The respondent resisted the case on the ground that the complaint is not maintainable under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, and that the complainant is not a consumer. Whatever the information sought for has been furnished, still if there is any grievance , she has to approach the appellate authority under the RTI Act. The Dist. Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter. The complaint is vexatious. There was no deficiency in service on its part, and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4) The complainant in proof of her case filed her affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A35 marked while the respondent filed the affidavit evidence of its Territory Manager and got Exs. B1 to B4 marked.
5) The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the complaint is not maintainable, and that there was no deficiency in service on the part of respondent, and accordingly dismissed the complaint without costs.
6) Aggrieved by the said decision, the complainant preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate either facts or law in correct perspective. It ought to have seen that the respondent did not furnish the information sought under the RTI Act nor permitted her to inspect the documents as directed by CIC in its order. It amounts to deficiency in service and therefore prayed that the complaint be allowed as prayed for.
7) The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact or law?
8) The appellant contends that non-furnishing of information amounts to misfeasance in public office, and therefore the complaint is maintainable in the light of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ghaziabad Development Vs. Balbir Singh reported in (2004) 5 SCC 65. That was a case where their Lordships’ opined that the services rendered by statutory and public authorities are amenable to the jurisdiction of the Dist. Forum, when an act is oppressive or capricious or arbitrary or negligent, provided loss or injury is suffered by a citizen.
9) Coming to the case on hand basically the complaint was filed for non-furnishing of information on the application filed under Right to Information Act (RTI Act). Simply because the complainant had used the words like oppressive, capricious, arbitrary or negligent etc., in not furnishing the information, it would, amount to deficiency in service, nor would come under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, more so, in the light of authoritative pronouncement of National Commission in T. Pundalika Vs. Revenue Department (Service Division), Govt. of Karnataka in R.P. No. 4061/2010 decided on 31.3.2011 observed: The Nation Commission observed:
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 RTI 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.”
10) The appellant also submitted her written arguments through post raising a plea more on the ground of misfeasance than applicability of provisions of Right to Information Act to the Consumer Protection Act in support of her contention. We may state that basically the complainant filed an application under RTI Act, and when certain information was not fully furnished, not satisfied with it, she filed the complaint on the ground that there was deficiency in service besides misfeasance on the part of respondent. Merely mentioning misfeasance would not in any way enable the Dist. Forum to take cognizance of the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act. He also relied national litigation policy by quoting excerpts:
“that it is the responsibility of the Govt. to protect the rights of citizens, to respect fundamental rights, and that those in charge of the conduct of Govt. litigation should never forget this basic principle. NLP also states that a responsible litigant should not take false pleas and technical points will not be taken, and shall be discouraged. They should ensure that the correct facts and all relevant documents will be placed before the Court.”
11) We do not appreciate the said contention in order to proceed with the complaint. Basically her case is that information sought for under RTI Act, 2005 has not been furnished. May be there was some misfeasance, however, when an appeal is provided against non-furnishing of information by the Public Information Officer under the RTI Act, 2005, the National Commission has categorically stated that aggrieved party has to approach the appellate authority invoking the provisions of RTI Act, 2005. The said judgment is binding on this Commission. We cannot sit over the judgment, and distinguish when such a distinction is not there. It is for the appellant/complainant to approach the appellate authority as provided under RTI Act, 2005 as was suggested by the National Commission. It is not as though she has no other forum to ventilate or redress her grievance. What all barred was filing a complaint before the consumer fora in the light of the fact that an alternative forum is provided under the RTI Act, 2005 to file an appeal. She cannot complain that the Dist. Forum only has to redress her grievance. The complaint is misconceived. We do not see any merits in the appeal.
12) In the result the appeal is dismissed. No costs.
1) _______________________________
PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
30/01/2012
*pnr
UP LOAD – O.K.
