Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 150
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 151
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Consumer court holds information panel liable for deficiency in service-R Sivaraman

Consumer court holds information panel liable for deficiency in service-R Sivaraman

Share this article Share this article
published Published on Jun 20, 2012   modified Modified on Jun 20, 2012
-The Hindu

They are both statutory forums that redress the grievances of people but have been placed at the loggerheads following a verdict by a city consumer court. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai, (South) has held the Public Information Officer of the Tamil Nadu State Information Commission liable for “deficiency of service”.

The consumer forum ordered the public information officer to pay compensation of Rs.5,000 to an applicant, holding that he had committed deficiency in service by not furnishing information sought by the complainant under RTI Act within the stipulated period.

The ruling means that RTI applicants are consumers and the furnishing of information under the RTI Act is a ‘service’.

The Commission questioned the maintainability of the complaint, but the Forum, comprising its president V. Gopal and member L. Deenadayalan, ruled against it, saying decisions of the Supreme Court and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission cited by the complainant made it clear that “the complainant is the consumer and the opposite party (Information Commission) is a service provider.

Aggrieved applicants

Pointing out that the provisions of the Right Information Act provided only for an appeal by aggrieved applicants, the Forum said: “There is no power given to appellate authorities to order compensation to the applicant. When the relief which could be obtained by the consumer under the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) as an additional remedy and when such remedy could not be granted by any other court or forum, then, naturally, the consumer can approach only the consumer forum and this view is clear from Section 3 of the CPA, 1986.

B. Ramesh, an advocate, sent an application to the State Information Commission on April 5, 2011 seeking information regarding the number of persons against whom penalty was imposed and whether enquiry was conducted before penalising. The applicant raised 19 questions in the application.

He also affixed a Rs.10 court fee stamp in that application and was, therefore, a consumer.

He contended that the Commission was expected to furnish the information within 30 days but failed to do so. Aggrieved by this, Mr. Ramesh filed the complaint seeking payment of Rs.50,000 as compensation for mental agony and for deficiency in service.

However, the Commission contended that its functioning was free of charge and such functioning would not constitute a ‘service’ as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

The information requested by the complainant was provided to him on July 7, 2011. As the complainant received the information ultimately, he could not allege that there was deficiency in service on its part.

The Commission further contended that if he did not receive information within the stipulated time, the complainant could have filed an appeal under Section 19 of RTI Act.

Dismissing the contentions, the Consumer Forum said: “The Commission had not furnished the information within the stipulated period but furnished it only after the filing of the complaint. It has committed deficiency in service by not furnishing the information within the stipulated period.”

Mental agony

Holding that the complainant would have suffered mental agony and unnecessary expenditure due to the deficiency in service, the Forum directed payment of compensation of Rs.5,000 to the complainant within six weeks.

If the commission failed to pay amount, it should carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum till date of payment.


The Hindu, 20 June, 2012, http://www.thehindu.com/news/states/tamil-nadu/article3547726.ece


Related Articles

 

Write Comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Video Archives

Archives

share on Facebook
Twitter
RSS
Feedback
Read Later

Contact Form

Please enter security code
      Close