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: 73
 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]
Code Context


        trigger_error($message, E_USER_DEPRECATED);

    }
$message = '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: 73
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php.'
$stackFrame = (int) 1
$trace = [
	(int) 0 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ServerRequest.php',
		'line' => (int) 2421,
		'function' => 'deprecationWarning',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead.'
		]
	],
	(int) 1 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
		'line' => (int) 73,
		'function' => 'offsetGet',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'catslug'
		]
	],
	(int) 2 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Controller/Controller.php',
		'line' => (int) 610,
		'function' => 'printArticle',
		'class' => 'App\Controller\ArtileDetailController',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 3 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 120,
		'function' => 'invokeAction',
		'class' => 'Cake\Controller\Controller',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 4 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 94,
		'function' => '_invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 5 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/BaseApplication.php',
		'line' => (int) 235,
		'function' => 'dispatch',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 6 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\BaseApplication',
		'object' => object(App\Application) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 7 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 162,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 8 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 9 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 88,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 10 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 11 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 96,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 12 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 13 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 51,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 14 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Server.php',
		'line' => (int) 98,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\MiddlewareQueue) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 15 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/webroot/index.php',
		'line' => (int) 39,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Server',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Server) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	]
]
$frame = [
	'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
	'line' => (int) 73,
	'function' => 'offsetGet',
	'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
	'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {
		trustProxy => false
		[protected] params => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] data => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] query => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] cookies => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] _environment => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] url => 'latest-news-updates/consumer-court-holds-information-panel-liable-for-deficiency-in-service-r-sivaraman-15781/print'
		[protected] base => ''
		[protected] webroot => '/'
		[protected] here => '/latest-news-updates/consumer-court-holds-information-panel-liable-for-deficiency-in-service-r-sivaraman-15781/print'
		[protected] trustedProxies => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] _input => null
		[protected] _detectors => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _detectorCache => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] stream => object(Zend\Diactoros\PhpInputStream) {}
		[protected] uri => object(Zend\Diactoros\Uri) {}
		[protected] session => object(Cake\Http\Session) {}
		[protected] attributes => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] emulatedAttributes => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] uploadedFiles => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] protocol => null
		[protected] requestTarget => null
		[private] deprecatedProperties => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	},
	'type' => '->',
	'args' => [
		(int) 0 => 'catslug'
	]
]
deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311
Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421
App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 73
Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98

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: 74
 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]
Code Context


        trigger_error($message, E_USER_DEPRECATED);

    }
$message = '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: 74
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php.'
$stackFrame = (int) 1
$trace = [
	(int) 0 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ServerRequest.php',
		'line' => (int) 2421,
		'function' => 'deprecationWarning',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead.'
		]
	],
	(int) 1 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
		'line' => (int) 74,
		'function' => 'offsetGet',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'artileslug'
		]
	],
	(int) 2 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Controller/Controller.php',
		'line' => (int) 610,
		'function' => 'printArticle',
		'class' => 'App\Controller\ArtileDetailController',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 3 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 120,
		'function' => 'invokeAction',
		'class' => 'Cake\Controller\Controller',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 4 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 94,
		'function' => '_invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 5 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/BaseApplication.php',
		'line' => (int) 235,
		'function' => 'dispatch',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 6 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\BaseApplication',
		'object' => object(App\Application) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 7 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 162,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 8 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 9 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 88,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 10 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 11 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 96,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 12 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 13 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 51,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 14 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Server.php',
		'line' => (int) 98,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\MiddlewareQueue) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 15 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/webroot/index.php',
		'line' => (int) 39,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Server',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Server) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	]
]
$frame = [
	'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
	'line' => (int) 74,
	'function' => 'offsetGet',
	'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
	'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {
		trustProxy => false
		[protected] params => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] data => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] query => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] cookies => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] _environment => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] url => 'latest-news-updates/consumer-court-holds-information-panel-liable-for-deficiency-in-service-r-sivaraman-15781/print'
		[protected] base => ''
		[protected] webroot => '/'
		[protected] here => '/latest-news-updates/consumer-court-holds-information-panel-liable-for-deficiency-in-service-r-sivaraman-15781/print'
		[protected] trustedProxies => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] _input => null
		[protected] _detectors => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _detectorCache => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] stream => object(Zend\Diactoros\PhpInputStream) {}
		[protected] uri => object(Zend\Diactoros\Uri) {}
		[protected] session => object(Cake\Http\Session) {}
		[protected] attributes => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] emulatedAttributes => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] uploadedFiles => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] protocol => null
		[protected] requestTarget => null
		[private] deprecatedProperties => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	},
	'type' => '->',
	'args' => [
		(int) 0 => 'artileslug'
	]
]
deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311
Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421
App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 74
Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98

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]
Code Context
            if (Configure::read('debug')) {

                trigger_error($message, E_USER_WARNING);

            } else {
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f782b9b85f9-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f782b9b85f9-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr67f782b9b85f9-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f782b9b85f9-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f782b9b85f9-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f782b9b85f9-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f782b9b85f9-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr67f782b9b85f9-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr67f782b9b85f9-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 15654,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Consumer court holds information panel liable for deficiency in service-R Sivaraman&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;-The Hindu&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;ldquo;deficiency of service&amp;rdquo;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The ruling means that RTI applicants are consumers and the furnishing of information under the RTI Act is a &amp;lsquo;service&amp;rsquo;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;ldquo;the complainant is the consumer and the opposite party (Information Commission) is a service provider.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Aggrieved applicants&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Pointing out that the provisions of the Right Information Act provided only for an appeal by aggrieved applicants, the Forum said: &amp;ldquo;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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He also affixed a Rs.10 court fee stamp in that application and was, therefore, a consumer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, the Commission contended that its functioning was free of charge and such functioning would not constitute a &amp;lsquo;service&amp;rsquo; as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dismissing the contentions, the Consumer Forum said: &amp;ldquo;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.&amp;rdquo;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Mental agony&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the commission failed to pay amount, it should carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum till date of payment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Hindu, 20 June, 2012, http://www.thehindu.com/news/states/tamil-nadu/article3547726.ece&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;consumer-court-holds-information-panel-liable-for-deficiency-in-service-r-sivaraman-15781&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 15781,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 15654,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Consumer court holds information panel liable for deficiency in service-R Sivaraman&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;Right to Information,Governance,Law and Justice,rti&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;-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...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;-The Hindu&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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 &amp;ldquo;deficiency of service&amp;rdquo;.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The ruling means that RTI applicants are consumers and the furnishing of information under the RTI Act is a &amp;lsquo;service&amp;rsquo;.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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 &amp;ldquo;the complainant is the consumer and the opposite party (Information Commission) is a service provider.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;Aggrieved applicants&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Pointing out that the provisions of the Right Information Act provided only for an appeal by aggrieved applicants, the Forum said: &amp;ldquo;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;He also affixed a Rs.10 court fee stamp in that application and was, therefore, a consumer.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;However, the Commission contended that its functioning was free of charge and such functioning would not constitute a &amp;lsquo;service&amp;rsquo; as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Dismissing the contentions, the Consumer Forum said: &amp;ldquo;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.&amp;rdquo;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;Mental agony&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;If the commission failed to pay amount, it should carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum till date of payment.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 15654,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Consumer court holds information panel liable for deficiency in service-R Sivaraman&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;-The Hindu&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;ldquo;deficiency of service&amp;rdquo;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The ruling means that RTI applicants are consumers and the furnishing of information under the RTI Act is a &amp;lsquo;service&amp;rsquo;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;ldquo;the complainant is the consumer and the opposite party (Information Commission) is a service provider.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Aggrieved applicants&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Pointing out that the provisions of the Right Information Act provided only for an appeal by aggrieved applicants, the Forum said: &amp;ldquo;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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He also affixed a Rs.10 court fee stamp in that application and was, therefore, a consumer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, the Commission contended that its functioning was free of charge and such functioning would not constitute a &amp;lsquo;service&amp;rsquo; as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dismissing the contentions, the Consumer Forum said: &amp;ldquo;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.&amp;rdquo;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Mental agony&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the commission failed to pay amount, it should carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum till date of payment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Hindu, 20 June, 2012, http://www.thehindu.com/news/states/tamil-nadu/article3547726.ece&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;consumer-court-holds-information-panel-liable-for-deficiency-in-service-r-sivaraman-15781&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 15781,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 2 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 3 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 15654
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Consumer court holds information panel liable for deficiency in service-R Sivaraman&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;Right to Information,Governance,Law and Justice,rti&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;-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...&#039;
$disp = &#039;-The Hindu&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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 &amp;ldquo;deficiency of service&amp;rdquo;.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The ruling means that RTI applicants are consumers and the furnishing of information under the RTI Act is a &amp;lsquo;service&amp;rsquo;.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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 &amp;ldquo;the complainant is the consumer and the opposite party (Information Commission) is a service provider.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;Aggrieved applicants&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Pointing out that the provisions of the Right Information Act provided only for an appeal by aggrieved applicants, the Forum said: &amp;ldquo;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;He also affixed a Rs.10 court fee stamp in that application and was, therefore, a consumer.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;However, the Commission contended that its functioning was free of charge and such functioning would not constitute a &amp;lsquo;service&amp;rsquo; as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Dismissing the contentions, the Consumer Forum said: &amp;ldquo;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.&amp;rdquo;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;Mental agony&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;If the commission failed to pay amount, it should carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum till date of payment.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/consumer-court-holds-information-panel-liable-for-deficiency-in-service-r-sivaraman-15781.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Consumer court holds information panel liable for deficiency in service-R Sivaraman | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="-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..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>Consumer court holds information panel liable for deficiency in service-R Sivaraman</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                -The Hindu<br /><div align="justify"><br />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 &ldquo;deficiency of service&rdquo;.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />The ruling means that RTI applicants are consumers and the furnishing of information under the RTI Act is a &lsquo;service&rsquo;.<br /><br />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 &ldquo;the complainant is the consumer and the opposite party (Information Commission) is a service provider.<br /><br /><em>Aggrieved applicants<br /></em><br />Pointing out that the provisions of the Right Information Act provided only for an appeal by aggrieved applicants, the Forum said: &ldquo;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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />He also affixed a Rs.10 court fee stamp in that application and was, therefore, a consumer.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />However, the Commission contended that its functioning was free of charge and such functioning would not constitute a &lsquo;service&rsquo; as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Dismissing the contentions, the Consumer Forum said: &ldquo;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.&rdquo;<br /><br /><em>Mental agony<br /></em><br />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.<br /><br />If the commission failed to pay amount, it should carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum till date of payment.<br /><br /></div>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$maxBufferLength = (int) 8192
$file = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php'
$line = (int) 853
$message = 'Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853'
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

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]
Code Context
            $response->getStatusCode(),

            ($reasonPhrase ? ' ' . $reasonPhrase : '')

        ));
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f782b9b85f9-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f782b9b85f9-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr67f782b9b85f9-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f782b9b85f9-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f782b9b85f9-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f782b9b85f9-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f782b9b85f9-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr67f782b9b85f9-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr67f782b9b85f9-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 15654,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Consumer court holds information panel liable for deficiency in service-R Sivaraman&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;-The Hindu&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;ldquo;deficiency of service&amp;rdquo;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The ruling means that RTI applicants are consumers and the furnishing of information under the RTI Act is a &amp;lsquo;service&amp;rsquo;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;ldquo;the complainant is the consumer and the opposite party (Information Commission) is a service provider.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Aggrieved applicants&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Pointing out that the provisions of the Right Information Act provided only for an appeal by aggrieved applicants, the Forum said: &amp;ldquo;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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He also affixed a Rs.10 court fee stamp in that application and was, therefore, a consumer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, the Commission contended that its functioning was free of charge and such functioning would not constitute a &amp;lsquo;service&amp;rsquo; as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dismissing the contentions, the Consumer Forum said: &amp;ldquo;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.&amp;rdquo;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Mental agony&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the commission failed to pay amount, it should carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum till date of payment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Hindu, 20 June, 2012, http://www.thehindu.com/news/states/tamil-nadu/article3547726.ece&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;consumer-court-holds-information-panel-liable-for-deficiency-in-service-r-sivaraman-15781&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 15781,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 15654,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Consumer court holds information panel liable for deficiency in service-R Sivaraman&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;Right to Information,Governance,Law and Justice,rti&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;-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...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;-The Hindu&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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 &amp;ldquo;deficiency of service&amp;rdquo;.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The ruling means that RTI applicants are consumers and the furnishing of information under the RTI Act is a &amp;lsquo;service&amp;rsquo;.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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 &amp;ldquo;the complainant is the consumer and the opposite party (Information Commission) is a service provider.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;Aggrieved applicants&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Pointing out that the provisions of the Right Information Act provided only for an appeal by aggrieved applicants, the Forum said: &amp;ldquo;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;He also affixed a Rs.10 court fee stamp in that application and was, therefore, a consumer.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;However, the Commission contended that its functioning was free of charge and such functioning would not constitute a &amp;lsquo;service&amp;rsquo; as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Dismissing the contentions, the Consumer Forum said: &amp;ldquo;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.&amp;rdquo;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;Mental agony&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;If the commission failed to pay amount, it should carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum till date of payment.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 15654,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Consumer court holds information panel liable for deficiency in service-R Sivaraman&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;-The Hindu&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;ldquo;deficiency of service&amp;rdquo;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The ruling means that RTI applicants are consumers and the furnishing of information under the RTI Act is a &amp;lsquo;service&amp;rsquo;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;ldquo;the complainant is the consumer and the opposite party (Information Commission) is a service provider.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Aggrieved applicants&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Pointing out that the provisions of the Right Information Act provided only for an appeal by aggrieved applicants, the Forum said: &amp;ldquo;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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He also affixed a Rs.10 court fee stamp in that application and was, therefore, a consumer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, the Commission contended that its functioning was free of charge and such functioning would not constitute a &amp;lsquo;service&amp;rsquo; as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dismissing the contentions, the Consumer Forum said: &amp;ldquo;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.&amp;rdquo;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Mental agony&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the commission failed to pay amount, it should carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum till date of payment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Hindu, 20 June, 2012, http://www.thehindu.com/news/states/tamil-nadu/article3547726.ece&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;consumer-court-holds-information-panel-liable-for-deficiency-in-service-r-sivaraman-15781&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 15781,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 2 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 3 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 15654
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Consumer court holds information panel liable for deficiency in service-R Sivaraman&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;Right to Information,Governance,Law and Justice,rti&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;-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...&#039;
$disp = &#039;-The Hindu&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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 &amp;ldquo;deficiency of service&amp;rdquo;.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The ruling means that RTI applicants are consumers and the furnishing of information under the RTI Act is a &amp;lsquo;service&amp;rsquo;.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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 &amp;ldquo;the complainant is the consumer and the opposite party (Information Commission) is a service provider.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;Aggrieved applicants&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Pointing out that the provisions of the Right Information Act provided only for an appeal by aggrieved applicants, the Forum said: &amp;ldquo;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;He also affixed a Rs.10 court fee stamp in that application and was, therefore, a consumer.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;However, the Commission contended that its functioning was free of charge and such functioning would not constitute a &amp;lsquo;service&amp;rsquo; as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Dismissing the contentions, the Consumer Forum said: &amp;ldquo;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.&amp;rdquo;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;Mental agony&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;If the commission failed to pay amount, it should carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum till date of payment.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/consumer-court-holds-information-panel-liable-for-deficiency-in-service-r-sivaraman-15781.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Consumer court holds information panel liable for deficiency in service-R Sivaraman | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="-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..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>Consumer court holds information panel liable for deficiency in service-R Sivaraman</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                -The Hindu<br /><div align="justify"><br />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 &ldquo;deficiency of service&rdquo;.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />The ruling means that RTI applicants are consumers and the furnishing of information under the RTI Act is a &lsquo;service&rsquo;.<br /><br />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 &ldquo;the complainant is the consumer and the opposite party (Information Commission) is a service provider.<br /><br /><em>Aggrieved applicants<br /></em><br />Pointing out that the provisions of the Right Information Act provided only for an appeal by aggrieved applicants, the Forum said: &ldquo;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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />He also affixed a Rs.10 court fee stamp in that application and was, therefore, a consumer.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />However, the Commission contended that its functioning was free of charge and such functioning would not constitute a &lsquo;service&rsquo; as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Dismissing the contentions, the Consumer Forum said: &ldquo;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.&rdquo;<br /><br /><em>Mental agony<br /></em><br />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.<br /><br />If the commission failed to pay amount, it should carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum till date of payment.<br /><br /></div>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$reasonPhrase = 'OK'
header - [internal], line ??
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitStatusLine() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 54
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

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]
Code Context
                    $value

                ), $first);

                $first = false;
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f782b9b85f9-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f782b9b85f9-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr67f782b9b85f9-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f782b9b85f9-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f782b9b85f9-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f782b9b85f9-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f782b9b85f9-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr67f782b9b85f9-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr67f782b9b85f9-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 15654,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Consumer court holds information panel liable for deficiency in service-R Sivaraman&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;-The Hindu&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;ldquo;deficiency of service&amp;rdquo;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The ruling means that RTI applicants are consumers and the furnishing of information under the RTI Act is a &amp;lsquo;service&amp;rsquo;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;ldquo;the complainant is the consumer and the opposite party (Information Commission) is a service provider.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Aggrieved applicants&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Pointing out that the provisions of the Right Information Act provided only for an appeal by aggrieved applicants, the Forum said: &amp;ldquo;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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He also affixed a Rs.10 court fee stamp in that application and was, therefore, a consumer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, the Commission contended that its functioning was free of charge and such functioning would not constitute a &amp;lsquo;service&amp;rsquo; as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dismissing the contentions, the Consumer Forum said: &amp;ldquo;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.&amp;rdquo;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Mental agony&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the commission failed to pay amount, it should carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum till date of payment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Hindu, 20 June, 2012, http://www.thehindu.com/news/states/tamil-nadu/article3547726.ece&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;consumer-court-holds-information-panel-liable-for-deficiency-in-service-r-sivaraman-15781&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 15781,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 15654,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Consumer court holds information panel liable for deficiency in service-R Sivaraman&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;Right to Information,Governance,Law and Justice,rti&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;-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...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;-The Hindu&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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 &amp;ldquo;deficiency of service&amp;rdquo;.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The ruling means that RTI applicants are consumers and the furnishing of information under the RTI Act is a &amp;lsquo;service&amp;rsquo;.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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 &amp;ldquo;the complainant is the consumer and the opposite party (Information Commission) is a service provider.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;Aggrieved applicants&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Pointing out that the provisions of the Right Information Act provided only for an appeal by aggrieved applicants, the Forum said: &amp;ldquo;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;He also affixed a Rs.10 court fee stamp in that application and was, therefore, a consumer.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;However, the Commission contended that its functioning was free of charge and such functioning would not constitute a &amp;lsquo;service&amp;rsquo; as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Dismissing the contentions, the Consumer Forum said: &amp;ldquo;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.&amp;rdquo;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;Mental agony&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;If the commission failed to pay amount, it should carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum till date of payment.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 15654,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Consumer court holds information panel liable for deficiency in service-R Sivaraman&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;-The Hindu&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;ldquo;deficiency of service&amp;rdquo;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The ruling means that RTI applicants are consumers and the furnishing of information under the RTI Act is a &amp;lsquo;service&amp;rsquo;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;ldquo;the complainant is the consumer and the opposite party (Information Commission) is a service provider.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Aggrieved applicants&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Pointing out that the provisions of the Right Information Act provided only for an appeal by aggrieved applicants, the Forum said: &amp;ldquo;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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He also affixed a Rs.10 court fee stamp in that application and was, therefore, a consumer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, the Commission contended that its functioning was free of charge and such functioning would not constitute a &amp;lsquo;service&amp;rsquo; as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dismissing the contentions, the Consumer Forum said: &amp;ldquo;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.&amp;rdquo;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Mental agony&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the commission failed to pay amount, it should carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum till date of payment.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Hindu, 20 June, 2012, http://www.thehindu.com/news/states/tamil-nadu/article3547726.ece&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;consumer-court-holds-information-panel-liable-for-deficiency-in-service-r-sivaraman-15781&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 15781,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 2 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 3 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 15654
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Consumer court holds information panel liable for deficiency in service-R Sivaraman&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;Right to Information,Governance,Law and Justice,rti&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;-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...&#039;
$disp = &#039;-The Hindu&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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 &amp;ldquo;deficiency of service&amp;rdquo;.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The ruling means that RTI applicants are consumers and the furnishing of information under the RTI Act is a &amp;lsquo;service&amp;rsquo;.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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 &amp;ldquo;the complainant is the consumer and the opposite party (Information Commission) is a service provider.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;Aggrieved applicants&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Pointing out that the provisions of the Right Information Act provided only for an appeal by aggrieved applicants, the Forum said: &amp;ldquo;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;He also affixed a Rs.10 court fee stamp in that application and was, therefore, a consumer.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;However, the Commission contended that its functioning was free of charge and such functioning would not constitute a &amp;lsquo;service&amp;rsquo; as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Dismissing the contentions, the Consumer Forum said: &amp;ldquo;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.&amp;rdquo;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;Mental agony&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;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.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;If the commission failed to pay amount, it should carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum till date of payment.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/consumer-court-holds-information-panel-liable-for-deficiency-in-service-r-sivaraman-15781.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Consumer court holds information panel liable for deficiency in service-R Sivaraman | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="-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..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>Consumer court holds information panel liable for deficiency in service-R Sivaraman</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                -The Hindu<br /><div align="justify"><br />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 &ldquo;deficiency of service&rdquo;.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />The ruling means that RTI applicants are consumers and the furnishing of information under the RTI Act is a &lsquo;service&rsquo;.<br /><br />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 &ldquo;the complainant is the consumer and the opposite party (Information Commission) is a service provider.<br /><br /><em>Aggrieved applicants<br /></em><br />Pointing out that the provisions of the Right Information Act provided only for an appeal by aggrieved applicants, the Forum said: &ldquo;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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />He also affixed a Rs.10 court fee stamp in that application and was, therefore, a consumer.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />However, the Commission contended that its functioning was free of charge and such functioning would not constitute a &lsquo;service&rsquo; as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Dismissing the contentions, the Consumer Forum said: &ldquo;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.&rdquo;<br /><br /><em>Mental agony<br /></em><br />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.<br /><br />If the commission failed to pay amount, it should carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum till date of payment.<br /><br /></div>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$cookies = []
$values = [
	(int) 0 => 'text/html; charset=UTF-8'
]
$name = 'Content-Type'
$first = true
$value = 'text/html; charset=UTF-8'
header - [internal], line ??
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitHeaders() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 55
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

<head>

    <link rel="canonical" href="<?php echo Configure::read('SITE_URL'); ?><?php echo $urlPrefix;?><?php echo $article_current->category->slug; ?>/<?php echo $article_current->seo_url; ?>.html"/>

    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>

$viewFile = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp'
$dataForView = [
	'article_current' => object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		'id' => (int) 15654,
		'title' => 'Consumer court holds information panel liable for deficiency in service-R Sivaraman',
		'subheading' => '',
		'description' => '-The Hindu<br />
<div align="justify">
<br />
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 &ldquo;deficiency of service&rdquo;.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
The ruling means that RTI applicants are consumers and the furnishing of information under the RTI Act is a &lsquo;service&rsquo;.<br />
<br />
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 &ldquo;the complainant is the consumer and the opposite party (Information Commission) is a service provider.<br />
<br />
<em>Aggrieved applicants<br />
</em><br />
Pointing out that the provisions of the Right Information Act provided only for an appeal by aggrieved applicants, the Forum said: &ldquo;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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
He also affixed a Rs.10 court fee stamp in that application and was, therefore, a consumer.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
However, the Commission contended that its functioning was free of charge and such functioning would not constitute a &lsquo;service&rsquo; as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Dismissing the contentions, the Consumer Forum said: &ldquo;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.&rdquo;<br />
<br />
<em>Mental agony<br />
</em><br />
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.<br />
<br />
If the commission failed to pay amount, it should carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum till date of payment.<br />
<br />
</div>',
		'credit_writer' => 'The Hindu, 20 June, 2012, http://www.thehindu.com/news/states/tamil-nadu/article3547726.ece',
		'article_img' => '',
		'article_img_thumb' => '',
		'status' => (int) 1,
		'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
		'lang' => 'EN',
		'category_id' => (int) 16,
		'tag_keyword' => '',
		'seo_url' => 'consumer-court-holds-information-panel-liable-for-deficiency-in-service-r-sivaraman-15781',
		'meta_title' => null,
		'meta_keywords' => null,
		'meta_description' => null,
		'noindex' => (int) 0,
		'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		'most_visit_section_id' => null,
		'article_big_img' => null,
		'liveid' => (int) 15781,
		'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		'edate' => '',
		'tags' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		'[new]' => false,
		'[accessible]' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		'[dirty]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[original]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[virtual]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[hasErrors]' => false,
		'[errors]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[invalid]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[repository]' => 'Articles'
	
	},
	'articleid' => (int) 15654,
	'metaTitle' => 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Consumer court holds information panel liable for deficiency in service-R Sivaraman',
	'metaKeywords' => 'Right to Information,Governance,Law and Justice,rti',
	'metaDesc' => '-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...',
	'disp' => '-The Hindu<br /><div align="justify"><br />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 &ldquo;deficiency of service&rdquo;.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />The ruling means that RTI applicants are consumers and the furnishing of information under the RTI Act is a &lsquo;service&rsquo;.<br /><br />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 &ldquo;the complainant is the consumer and the opposite party (Information Commission) is a service provider.<br /><br /><em>Aggrieved applicants<br /></em><br />Pointing out that the provisions of the Right Information Act provided only for an appeal by aggrieved applicants, the Forum said: &ldquo;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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />He also affixed a Rs.10 court fee stamp in that application and was, therefore, a consumer.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />However, the Commission contended that its functioning was free of charge and such functioning would not constitute a &lsquo;service&rsquo; as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Dismissing the contentions, the Consumer Forum said: &ldquo;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.&rdquo;<br /><br /><em>Mental agony<br /></em><br />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.<br /><br />If the commission failed to pay amount, it should carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum till date of payment.<br /><br /></div>',
	'lang' => 'English',
	'SITE_URL' => 'https://im4change.in/',
	'site_title' => 'im4change',
	'adminprix' => 'admin'
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	'id' => (int) 15654,
	'title' => 'Consumer court holds information panel liable for deficiency in service-R Sivaraman',
	'subheading' => '',
	'description' => '-The Hindu<br />
<div align="justify">
<br />
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 &ldquo;deficiency of service&rdquo;.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
The ruling means that RTI applicants are consumers and the furnishing of information under the RTI Act is a &lsquo;service&rsquo;.<br />
<br />
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 &ldquo;the complainant is the consumer and the opposite party (Information Commission) is a service provider.<br />
<br />
<em>Aggrieved applicants<br />
</em><br />
Pointing out that the provisions of the Right Information Act provided only for an appeal by aggrieved applicants, the Forum said: &ldquo;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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
He also affixed a Rs.10 court fee stamp in that application and was, therefore, a consumer.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
However, the Commission contended that its functioning was free of charge and such functioning would not constitute a &lsquo;service&rsquo; as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Dismissing the contentions, the Consumer Forum said: &ldquo;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.&rdquo;<br />
<br />
<em>Mental agony<br />
</em><br />
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.<br />
<br />
If the commission failed to pay amount, it should carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum till date of payment.<br />
<br />
</div>',
	'credit_writer' => 'The Hindu, 20 June, 2012, http://www.thehindu.com/news/states/tamil-nadu/article3547726.ece',
	'article_img' => '',
	'article_img_thumb' => '',
	'status' => (int) 1,
	'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
	'lang' => 'EN',
	'category_id' => (int) 16,
	'tag_keyword' => '',
	'seo_url' => 'consumer-court-holds-information-panel-liable-for-deficiency-in-service-r-sivaraman-15781',
	'meta_title' => null,
	'meta_keywords' => null,
	'meta_description' => null,
	'noindex' => (int) 0,
	'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	'most_visit_section_id' => null,
	'article_big_img' => null,
	'liveid' => (int) 15781,
	'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	'edate' => '',
	'tags' => [
		(int) 0 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 2 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 3 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	'[new]' => false,
	'[accessible]' => [
		'*' => true,
		'id' => false
	],
	'[dirty]' => [],
	'[original]' => [],
	'[virtual]' => [],
	'[hasErrors]' => false,
	'[errors]' => [],
	'[invalid]' => [],
	'[repository]' => 'Articles'

}
$articleid = (int) 15654
$metaTitle = 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Consumer court holds information panel liable for deficiency in service-R Sivaraman'
$metaKeywords = 'Right to Information,Governance,Law and Justice,rti'
$metaDesc = '-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...'
$disp = '-The Hindu<br /><div align="justify"><br />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 &ldquo;deficiency of service&rdquo;.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />The ruling means that RTI applicants are consumers and the furnishing of information under the RTI Act is a &lsquo;service&rsquo;.<br /><br />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 &ldquo;the complainant is the consumer and the opposite party (Information Commission) is a service provider.<br /><br /><em>Aggrieved applicants<br /></em><br />Pointing out that the provisions of the Right Information Act provided only for an appeal by aggrieved applicants, the Forum said: &ldquo;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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />He also affixed a Rs.10 court fee stamp in that application and was, therefore, a consumer.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />However, the Commission contended that its functioning was free of charge and such functioning would not constitute a &lsquo;service&rsquo; as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Dismissing the contentions, the Consumer Forum said: &ldquo;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.&rdquo;<br /><br /><em>Mental agony<br /></em><br />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.<br /><br />If the commission failed to pay amount, it should carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum till date of payment.<br /><br /></div>'
$lang = 'English'
$SITE_URL = 'https://im4change.in/'
$site_title = 'im4change'
$adminprix = 'admin'

include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51

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

-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.