Dificiency in service
Thyagarajan
(Querist) 07 June 2010
This query is : Resolved
If the Information officers of concerned departments do not reply to applications on RTI can they be sued in consumer forum for difficiency of service. If so can any member give a past case referance?
mahendrakumar
(Expert) 07 June 2010
consumer cases could be filed.
originally a case was filed in a consumer court by a doctor in bangalore and he won the case. I do Not remember the case number.
Tribhuwan Pandey
(Expert) 07 June 2010
No, here a person seeking information is not a consumer.
If the Information officers of concerned departments do not reply to applications then you may file an appeal under section 19 of RIT Act before senior officer (Chief Information Commissioner) within 30 days.
Thyagarajan
(Querist) 07 June 2010
I give below a para under consumer act under defination
2.o) "service" means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes, but not limited to, the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, 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;
In the para it clearly shows giving information is a service and person asking becomes a consumer.
Ofcourse views can be taken on laws . That is why I approched for Expert view from membes and whether any past case is there.
The information will be of use to me in a case
Guest
(Expert) 07 June 2010
june 2009 NCDRC has decided that RTI applicant is a consumer under CP Act
Dr S P Thirumala Rao, a consulting physician in Mysore, was upset that some agency had dug up the footpath in front of his clinic for laying telephone cables through PVC pipes but had failed to restore it after completion of the work. The damaged footpath and the projecting pipe was causing obstruction to his patients as well as to pedestrians. He submitted two RTI applications to the Mysore City Municipal Corporation seeking information about the telephone service provider who was responsible for this.
As the information was not furnished within the prescribed period, he filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Forum claiming compensation and costs from the municipal corporation. In its defence, the corporation claimed that the information could not be furnished within the prescribed period due to heavy workload. It also claimed that the work was carried out by Reliance and the Government of India through the Department of Telecommunications, and hence the corporation could not be held responsible for the same. The jurisdiction of the consumer forum was also challenged.
The forum observed that the RTI Act bars the jurisdiction of courts, but not the consumer fora as the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) is meant to be an additional remedy. Further, the RTI Act does not deal with compensation for deficiency in service. Hence, a complaint filed to claim compensation for deficiency in service for failure to furnish the information would be maintainable under the CPA. Since delay was admitted, the forum awarded token damages of Rs 500 and costs of Rs 100.
The corporation challenged this order before the Karnatake State Commission. It argued that since the RTI provided for an appeal against failure to furnish the information sought, the proper remedy would have been to approach the appellate authority, and not the consumer forum. Hence, the complaint ought to be dismissed. The State Commission upheld this contention, allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint.
Dr Rao then approached the National Commission by filing a Revision Petition. Being a matter of public importance, the commission appointed advocates Aditya Narain and Astha Tyagi as amicus curaie. In its judgment delivered by Justice R K Batta, presiding member, on behalf of the Bench comprising himself and S K Naik, the commission observed that the settled law was that even if a particular law barred the jurisdiction of courts, a complaint could still be filed under the provisions of the CPA as it provided an additional remedy. The RTI Act did not bar the jurisdiction of the consumer fora. Also, the provision for appeal under the RTI Act was restricted to the failure to furnish the information sought, but there was no provision to claim compensation for deficiency in service. An applicant under the RTI Act has to pay fees for getting the information, and hence he acquires the status of a consumer. If there is any deficiency in service in respect of providing such information, a complaint could be filed under the CPA for claiming compensation.
With this reasoning, the National Commission set aside the order of the State Commission and restored that of the District Forum.
[Judgment dated 28.05.2009 in the case of Dr S P Thirumala Rao v/s Municipal Commissioner, Mysore City Municipal Corporation.
G. ARAVINTHAN
(Expert) 07 June 2010
generally appeal only lie before the superior officer and second appeal before the state information commission
G. ARAVINTHAN
(Expert) 07 June 2010
generally appeal only lie before the superior officer and second appeal before the state information commission
Thyagarajan
(Querist) 08 June 2010
Dear Sri Ajithba Acharya,
Thank you for giving me a past reference. The very fact that the case had gone through three tier of the Consumer Fora by 2009 and the stipulated time to take up the matter on revision before the Apex Court had passed the ruling of National Commission becomes a set Law binding the Information officer as service provider and the applicant having paid in form of stamp duty to obtain the information as a service provider.
The information you have furnished will be quoted by me in my petition before the Forum.
A brief of my case is as follows.
I had made a complaint to Department of Administrative reforms and Public Grievances cell New Delhi that a builder had duped 14 NRIs of Dubai, including me, in floating a scheme to construct cottages at Kodaikanal and collected money for which he had no permission granted by the Local Authorities.The Grievances cell in turn having found substance forwarded the complaint to CM Cell Special officer Tamilnadu. On 20/5/2010 the CM cell found the builder had made offences mentioned in Criminal Procedure Code and forwarded the same to Commissioner of Police Chennai. I had been furnished letter reference of CM Cell to Commissioner of Police in writing. Telephone enquiries with administrative section of the commissioner’s office yielded little result. If I am not mistaken FIR should have been directed to be made by the Police Station of jurisdiction without delay based on my complaint after getting oral and written version from me. Since it was not done I will be sending an application under RTI the information officer. After the expiry of a month’s time I intend filing a case with consumer Forum.
You have given a vital reference that will not only help me but all other members of the club.
With much regards to you
A. A. JOSE
(Expert) 08 June 2010
I am of the opinion that the remedies available under the RTI Act 2005 need to be exhausted inspite of the legal position settled by the NC.
I have already given a recent judgement of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court (passed in a group of SCAs - beginning with SCA NO.8264/2009 - judgement dt.13.6.2010)in the Forum/Judiciary wings of this site. The said judgement virtually bars jurisdiction of Consumer Courts/Commission in the disputes relating to Electricity thefts and unauthorised use of Electricity booked under the ElectricityAct 2003. It would be pertinent to point out here that on the said issues also the NC had upheld the jurisdiction of consumer courts. However, interestingly the High Court has now decided otherwise. The information seeker may kindly go through the aforesaid judgement of the Gujarat High Court and decide further course of action.
With best wishes,
Thyagarajan
(Querist) 08 June 2010
Dear Sri Ajithba Acharya,
I could get the case citation of NCDRC that you gave in the web site 'confonet' but I am not able to download this judgment. Many of the judgments in State Forums as well could not be viwed.
If you have already download the judgment I would be greatful if you can put in as answer to my query.
Regards
mahendrakumar
(Expert) 09 June 2010
dear thyagarajan,
please visit rtiindia.org.
you can get the judgements copy there.
further,the site would be of much help to you in the rti related matters.
Thyagarajan
(Querist) 11 June 2010
Dear Sri Ajithba Acharya,
Yesterday I could download the judgment of the NCDCR that you refered.
Thanks a lot
