Jump to content

IS RTI applicant a consumer as defined under Consumer Protection Act - See the details in this post.


munirathnam
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just I went to NCDRC website and clicked on the link ofr Judgements/Orders ... then it asked me for the case details. I gave the case details and it shown the case hearings as well as final order link to download.... please try this and let me know if any issue is there ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Replies 477
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • karira

    39

  • skmishra1970

    104

  • munirathnam

    46

  • Prasad GLN

    69

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

[TABLE=width: 100%]

[TR]

[TD=align: right]

This is the order I got it from the site of NCDRC

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=colspan: 6]NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=colspan: 6]NEW DELHI

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=colspan: 6][/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

[TABLE=width: 100%]

[TR]

[TD=align: right][/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=colspan: 6]REVISION PETITION NO. 4061 OF 2010

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD][/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD](Against the Order dated 14/09/2010 in Appeal No. 1163/2010 of the State Commission Karnataka)

[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

[TABLE=width: 100%]

[TR]

[TD][TABLE]

[TR]

[TD=colspan: 6, align: left]1. T. PUNDALIKA

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=colspan: 6, align: left]H.No. 406, Ward No.9, Padma Sri Nilaya, Panduranga Colony,

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=colspan: 6, align: left]Ananthashayana Gudi, Hospet,

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=colspan: 6, align: left]Bellary (Karnataka)

[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

 

[/TD]

[TD]...........Petitioner(s)

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Versus

[/TD]

[TD][/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD][TABLE]

[TR]

[TD=colspan: 6, align: left]1. REVENUE DEPARTMENT (SERVICE DIVISION), GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=colspan: 6, align: left]The Secretary, Revenue Department (Service Division), Government of Karnataka

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=colspan: 6, align: left]Bangalore - 560001

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=colspan: 6, align: left]Karnataka

[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

 

[/TD]

[TD]...........Respondent(s)

[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

 

[TABLE=width: 100%]

[TR]

[TD=align: left]BEFORE:

[/TD]

[TD=align: left][/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=align: left][/TD]

[TD=align: left]HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN, PRESIDENT

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=align: left][/TD]

[TD=align: left]HON'BLE MRS. VINEETA RAI, MEMBER

[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

 

[TABLE=width: 100%]

[TR]

[TD=align: left]For the Petitioner :

[/TD]

[TD][/TD]

[TD=align: left]MR. R.K. DIKSHI (AMICUS CURIAE)

[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

[TABLE=width: 100%]

[TR]

[TD=colspan: 6, align: left]For the Respondent :

[/TD]

[TD=align: left]NEMO

[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

 

Dated : 31 Mar 2011[TABLE=width: 100%]

[TR]

[TD=colspan: 6]ORDER

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD][TABLE=width: 100%]

[TR]

[TD=colspan: 6, align: left]Petitioner had sent a letter on 10.1.2001 to the effect that he is not physically fit to appear before this Commission and also not in a position to engage an advocate due to financial difficulties. Prayer was made to dispose of the Revision Petition on the basis of the decision of this Commission in Dr.S.P. Thirumala Rao vs. Municipal Commission, Mysore - R.P. No.1975/2005 decided on 28.5.2009. We appointed Mr.R.K. Dikshit, Advocate as amicus curiae to appear in this case on behalf of the petitioner.

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 Appellate Authority under Section 19 of the RTI Act, 2005. Dismissed.

 

[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

 

[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

[TABLE=width: 100%]

[TR]

[TD][/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=colspan: 6, align: right]......................J

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=colspan: 6, align: right]ASHOK BHAN

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=colspan: 6, align: right]PRESIDENT

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=colspan: 6, align: right]......................

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=colspan: 6, align: right]VINEETA RAI

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=colspan: 6, align: right]MEMBER

[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

Attached is a judgment of the Madras HC where the court tried to consider this issue about whether an RTI applicant is a consumer under CPA or not.

 

However, there does not seem to be any firm order from the court on this core issue, since the matter was disposed off since the company was a private limited company and not a public authority under RTI Act 2005. It is amazing that the Company, its lawyers, etc. did not consider this aspect (that the company is not a PA) while replying to the RTI applicant ir before filing the case in the HC !

Madras HC judgment on consumer fora and RTI.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hon'ble members. In view of your friend, first we may pay our attention on section 23 of R.T.I. Act 2005 which explicitely say, No court shall entertain any suit, application or other proceeding in respect of any order made under this act and no such order shall be called in question otherwise than by way of an appeal under this act. Why we are going in deep regarding the subject of discussion if it itself creating conflict of provisions of two distinct acts? When Hon'ble S.C.I. declared it special law , then it must be dealt by specific provisions of R.T.I. Act 2005 in case remedy is available. Thanks to RTI India portal for providing excellent plateform to exchange views and expressing opinions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
Hon'ble members. In view of your friend, first we may pay our attention on section 23 of R.T.I. Act 2005 which explicitely say, No court shall entertain any suit, application or other proceeding in respect of any order made under this act and no such order shall be called in question otherwise than by way of an appeal under this act. Why we are going in deep regarding the subject of discussion if it itself creating conflict of provisions of two distinct acts? When Hon'ble S.C.I. declared it special law , then it must be dealt by specific provisions of R.T.I. Act 2005 in case remedy is available. Thanks to RTI India portal for providing excellent plateform to exchange views and expressing opinions.

 

Here is a summary of various arguments till now:

 

1. Is the DCDRF a "Court" or a "quasi judicial body" ?

2. The remedy under RTI Act is to get the information, get penalty imposed, get compensation for loss or detriment suffered for non provision of information

3. On the other hand, under CPA, the consumer is asking for compensation for deficiency for service.

4. Under CPA, "service" is defined as:

 

(0) "service" means service of any description which is made available to potential (users and

includes the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing insurance, transport,

processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, 2[housing

construction] entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does

not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service;

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Daily Order

 

Please go through the abovelink.

 

Consumer forums are started beliving the judgments discussed here. Some of the member has posted it has a fake one.

 

The NCDRC judgment quoted by Dist. forum is not available in NCDRC website. What to do to this??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Kiran K,

 

The complainant is not argued the matter properly .... similar question is asked by the district forum to me, I replied saying that if two statues gives remedy to the complainant then no court shall direct the complainant to approch another statue to give remedy ....as per Supreme Court.

 

Also the consumer act is for protection of consumers and also there is no remedy for deficiency of service in RTI Act and the remedy that can be reeived in consumer act is in addition to the relief that is present in the RTI Act by invoking the section 3 of Consumer Act.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
Daily Order

 

Please go through the abovelink.

Consumer forums are started beliving the judgments discussed here. Some of the member has posted it has a fake one.

The NCDRC judgment quoted by Dist. forum is not available in NCDRC website. What to do to this??

 

For convenience of members, attached the PDF copy of the decision to this post.

DCDRF Bangalore RTI applicant not consumer 15 March 2012.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are welcome Mishra.

 

Immediately the complainant at Bangalore shall make an appel before the State Commission considering the arguments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have Lodged a complaint in DCDRF regarding RTI :

1. I have applied for my own answer scripts to the Bangalore university on Feb 2011 after the results immediately, PIO refused to give the answer script of my own on the basis of confidentiality of University. They did not rejected my application on any grounds specified in RTI section 8 & 9.

2. I have questioned this order of PIO in Karnataka SIC. In between i have wrote a letter to President of India regarding the matter and university is depriving my fundamental right and the same petition is forwarded to Karnataka Govt. by this way university got instructions to consider my request and to give answer scripts as per law. Even for this PIO has not given the Information and given a letter that the Answer Scripts can be kept only for 6 months. Even as per their contention they have to provide me the answer scripts, Because i have applied for the answer script immediately after pronouncing of the results and even the communication done by Karnataka Govt. is within 6 months of result declaration. But they have betrayed me and RTI.

3. Further SIC has called my case for hearing in month of JAN 2012, during that time university has given explanation stating that "the requested information is already furnished to Petitioner in the month of SEP 2011. For this they have produced one letter and Postal proof for having posted the Information for me. But the fact is, I have applied for Revaluation ordinance and regulations of University in the month of SEP 2011 and the same has been furnished by PIO . But they misled the SIC by showing the same copy and informed them that the Answer scripts was provided. It is very much clear in the letter furnished by university to SIC that only revaluation regulation is furnished and they have paid postage of Rs.12/-.

4. I tried to tell this matter to SIC, but i don't know why they wont given me any opportunity to speak! They disposed the case by stating that the requested information is provided.

5. If they have provided me Answer scripts means the postage paid by university must be above 40 rupees. Because my answer Script is nearly 60 pages. I have tried to explain all these to SIC, But they dint given any chance for me and just passed the order by seeing the University reply without reading the I think they are partial about the Bangalore university official or it is the clear case that how bureaucrats will do injustice to people without any interpretation, by this i have lost all my hopes in SIC.

6. I have lodged a complaint regarding this in DCDRF by stating all their contentions and above facts and how they betraying me and even SIC. I have claimed a compensation of 90,000/- for this delay and their betrayal and they time lapsed and also making me to run to resolve the grievance.

 

8. In this regard what is my next step in DCDRF? During the arguments stage i have to justify the compensation amount claimed and how reasonable in my case. How to justify it? can i quote any judgement to justify the same? Because they have just not denied me a information, they have misled so many authorities and also misled the SIC.. i contended that it is a severe Service deficiency and also a Unfair trade practice on their part, they have also having unethical and harassing intention without any reasons and also betrayed the Judicial authority.

 

10. I request all of you to guide me in this regard. We need to teach a lesson to University and even i have to convey the message to SIC not to honor the records given such erring official in partial way and not to deprive the justice to people and to uphold the RTI. I request your guidance in this regard too.

Thank you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Kiran K,

 

I would help you in filing the Writ Petition in Karnataka High Court against the decision of SIC. You may contact me on 8884400477.

 

If PIO gave false information to the SIC on which the order is passed then you have to file writ petition in High Court challenging the order of SIC.

 

In the writ petition you may pray for action against the PIO (Departmental Enquiry and Criminal Action) and aslo the compensation (more than 90,000) and aslo the information.

 

If you need writ petition format you may contact me. It is simple petition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some questions to you:

 

1. How could you say that SIC did not give you chance to hear you.

2. What is the reply of PIO and SIC for your argument that say the postal proof shown by the PIO is related to some other matter?

 

Mean while file a RTI seeking the certified copy of the postal acknowledge of the post received in SEP-2011 and the details of the documents that are enclosed in that letter.... also ask the PIO about the total number of pages in the post and the weight of the post etc....here he will be caught.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Approaching the Consumer forum may end up your litigations long... means first omplint at DCDRF then SCDRF then NCDRF then any High Court or Suprmeme Court....

 

If you challenge the order of SIC directly you would get result at once .... better to plan for filing the Writ Petition under Article 226 and 227 of Constitution of India.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

You can file Private Complaint against the PIO in Magistrate Court for supplying the false information. Here you can site all your evidecne as pert of your compliant.

 

This way you can bring more pressure on the PIO and even you can send him to jail.

 

This complaint may be preferred after you win the Writ Petition in High Court so that the Magistrate Court will say no objecion and without any doubt the PIO will go to jail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi friends,

I am very appreciate for such good discussion on this forum. On 9th April 2012 Chandigarh Consumer Forum also awarded Compensation of Rs. 50000/- with cost Rs. 5000/- in two complaints total amounting to Rs. 110000/- to a 75 years old citizen due to wrong information provided under RTI by Punjab Financial Corporation (Case No. CC/496/2011). Copy of order already uploaded by our Hon'ble member Mr. Bhanot in another threat - Successfull Consumer Complaint.

 

In my case when everything is discussed, replied and oral arguments are made and my complaint No. 411/2011 is fixed for 4-5-2012 for order, OP have cleaverly written a letter referring Judgement dt. 31-3-11 of NCDRC in REVISION PETITION NO. 4061 OF 2010 (Against the Order dated 14/09/2010 in Appeal No. 1163/2010 of the State Commission Karnataka) requesting to take the same on record and decide the complaint accordingly.

 

Now members are requested to please advice whether a party may request when everything is over, Oral arguments have been done, and the complaint is at final stage and ripe for final order ? should I also write a reply letter to Hon'ble President DCDRF-I Chandigarh and what ?

 

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA

PANCHKULA (HRY)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After searching on confonet, I found that RP/4060/2010 was disposed off by NCDRC on 31-3-2011 with order that - RTI Applicant is not a Consumer.

 

But at present this case has been restored again. A search report dated 27-4-2012 enclosed herewith showing Case Status as "Restored". Last date of hearing was 13-3-2012, but daily order dated 13-3-2012 and next date of hearing still not updated on the website of Confonet.

 

Sorry unable to attach scan copy of search report. Attachment process is too lenghty. Anybody may go to site of Confonet and search it anytime.

 

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After searching on confonet, I found that RP/4060/2010 was disposed off by NCDRC on 31-3-2011 with order that - RTI Applicant is not a Consumer.

 

But at present this case has been restored again. A search report dated 27-4-2012 enclosed herewith showing Case Status as "Restored". Last date of hearing was 13-3-2012, but daily order dated 13-3-2012 and next date of hearing still not updated on the website of Confonet.

 

Sorry unable to attach scan copy of search report. Attachment process is too lenghty. Anybody may go to site of Confonet and search it anytime.

 

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA

 

Praying for update on this matter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi,

In the latest order of NCCDRC dated 31-10-2011 in T. Pundalika Vs Revenue Dept. of Karnataka, it is declared that Rti applicant cannot claimed to be a consumer under consumer protection Act since there is remedy available for him to approach the Appellate authority under section 19 of the RTI act, 2005. Quoting the above order, District Forum -1 of Hyderabad has dismissed my 11 cases on 8-2-2012.

 

I have filed an appeal in the State Commission. During arguments for admission of the appeals, I have referred the order of NCDRC 28-5-2009 in Dr.S.P. Tirumal Rao Vs Municipal Commission, Mysore where in it was declared that that RTI applicant is a consumer and told the commission that 2009 order was a reasoned order where as 2011 order is not a reasoned one. However the Hon’ble President of the State Commission has commented that whether it is a reasoned order or unreasoned order as per the law of the land , the latest order of higher forum is binding on the lower forum. However he granted me time till June 3rd to present any orders or rule of law contradicting his stand otherwise all my 11 appeals are going to be dismissed. I request members help to guide me how to approach further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

However he granted me time till June 3rd to present any orders or rule of law contradicting his stand otherwise all my 11 appeals are going to be dismissed. I request members help to guide me how to approach further.

 

Your post has been merged with another thread on the same subject/topic. Please read the full thread above and also all the links given in the various posts. Read some of the arguments given by one of our members when his consumer case was also not being accepted. He gave those arguments and finally case was accepted.

(NOTE: The thread has several pages !)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • Tell a friend

    Love RTI INDIA- Online RTI? Tell a friend!
  • Members

    No members to show

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      119.9k
    • Total Posts
      428.6k
  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy