Decided on August 12,2013

State Public Information Officer, Office Of Deputy Excise And Taxation Commissioner, Gurgaon (East) Appellant
KALI RAM Respondents


- (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the order dated 28.3.2013 passed by District Consumer Forum, Gurgaon whereby complaint No. 540/ 2011 filed by complainant (respondent herein) against the appellant -opposite party was accepted in the following terms: " view of above observation and the law laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission in its various above judgments the complainant is a Consumer vis -a -vis information sought on payment of fee under the said Act which was found to be incomplete and thus, OP was deficient in providing services to the complainant. The complaint is not barred under Consumer Protection Act as the bar only relates to the Court and the Consumer Fora is not a Court. Thus, the complaint is very much maintainable against the OP hence, non -supply of the information to the complainant in time within specified period of 30 days amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OP and the complainant is entitled to compensation of Rs. 5,000. He however can also seek information from the sender of said letters Excise Taxation Commissioner, Haryana as the OP has already failed to supply the information as not available. He is also entitled to litigation expenses of Rs. 3,000. Compliance be made within 30 days failing which the complainant will be entitled to interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization."
(2.) THE brief facts of the present case are that complainant was working as a Clerk at Check Post Sikanderpur, Gurgaon under the opposite party. The Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Gurgaon recorded Adverse Remarks in his Annual Confidential Report for the year 1989 -90 which was conveyed to him on 29.5.1990. Complainant made a representation against the said remarks on 9.8.1990 but the same was rejected by the Competent Authority vide letter dated 6.1.2003 on the ground that as per the latest instructions of the Government dated 14.8.1987 and 30.4.1987, the same was time barred. According to the complainant no such instructions had ever been received in their office nor it was conveyed to the staff. Complainant sought information about the same vide application dated 24.5.2010 on payment of Rs. 85 under Right to Information Act, 2005 as detailed in para 4 of the complaint. The grievance of the complainant before the District Consumer Forum was that the opposite party had not supplied the information within the prescribed period of 30 days and the same was supplied with 28 days delay vide Memo No. 441/RTI dated 21.7.2010 and the information supplied was also incomplete. Complainant further alleged that the opposite party did not supply the complete information despite repeated requests oral as well as in writing. Alleging it a case of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Consumenr Forum by filing complaint seeking direction to the opposite party to supply complete information and to pay Rs. 2.00 lacs for harassment and monetary loss.
(3.) UPON notice, the opposite party appeared and contested the complaint by filing written statement. It was stated that the complaint filed by the complainant was not maintainable as the complainant had filed appeal against the order of the opposite party and the same was dismissed by the competent authority and thus the complainant has misused the process of law by filing complaint on false and frivolous grounds. Denying all other allegations of the complainant, it was prayed that the complaint merited dismissal. On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced on the record, District Consumer Forum accepted complaint and issued direction to the opposite party as noticed in the opening para of this order.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.