Consumer court holds TAMILNADU information COMMISSION panel liable for deficiency in service

Consumer court holds information panel liable for deficiency in service R. Sivaraman Share · Comment · print · T+ Share 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. Keywords: TN Information Commission, Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum