Compiled List - Successful Consumer Complaints in RTI Cases

Please find attached a list of successful Consumer Complaints in RTI Cases Before National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; } 1. NCDRC Iin RP No. 2774 of 2004 IN Usha Rani Aggarwal Versus Nagar Palika Parishad, Haldwani 2. NCDRC IN RP No. 1975 OF 2005 IN Dr. S.P. Thirumala Rao Vs. Municipal Commissioner Mysore City Municipal Corporation Before Various District Consumer Fora

1. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandi H.P . CC No.14/2009 IN Lawan

Thakur Vs PIO-cum-Additional Distt Magistrate, Kullu, H.P. 2. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum South Mumbai CC No. SMF/MUM/301/2009 Shrikant Yeshwant V/s Public Service Commission , Mumbai 3. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Vizianagaram C.C.NO:118/2010 IN MATTER OF Barla Venkata Rao VS PIO Tahsildar, Vizianagaram 4. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Tuticorin CC No. 57/10 Rajakumar vs PIO (Registrar ) Manomaniam Sundaranar University & ors 5. District Consumer Disputes Redressal ForumVizianagaram C.C.NO:116/2010 IN MATTER OF Vaka Venkata Narasimham VS Commissioner Endowments 6. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum , Nuapada CC/11/8 in Yado kumr Sahu Vs. PIO,O/o BDO,Nuapada 7. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum FARIDKOT Punjab CC No. : 102 /11 Ashu Mittal Versus PIO cum District Transport Officer, Faridkot 8. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum NIZAMABAD C.C.No.41 of 2010 R.Rammohan Rao vs I O (Divisional Engineer Operation), NPDCL 9. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Mohali CC No. 249 of 2011 Dr. Sanjeev Malhotra vs Estate Officer GMADA Mohali 10. Medak Dist. Consumer Forum (AP) Sangareddy Chandra Reddy vs District Education Officer. 11. Salem [Tamilnadu] Dist Consumer Forum has ordered on 29-12-2011 supply of information and payment of compensation of Rs.5000/- to RTI applicant for nonsupply of information 12. Pune Dist Consumer Forum Main has ordered payment of compensation of Rs.15000 and expenses of Rs.1000 on 29-11-2011 in CC No. 564/2010 to Shri Haribhau Kakade. Order is in Marathi. In this case, SIC had ordered supply of information on 14-05-2010. Compensation was for mental agony due to deficiency of service by PIO.

6 BDPOs pay for giving incomplete information Complainant

awarded Rs 45,000, to be deducted from their salaries
Tribune News Service 13. Mohali, February 13 In an unprecedented order pertaining to the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, six officials with the Rural Development and Panchayat Department, Punjab, are in the dock for harassing a 75-year-old person who had sought information from the department. In response to the information sought by the person on behalf of his wife, who retired as craft teacher, the officials provided him incomplete information. Attracting the ire of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum for causing agony to the information seeker, the Block Development and Panchayat Officer (BDPOs), deputed as Assistant Public Information Officer (APIOs), have been penalised. Apart from directing the Director, Rural Development and Panchayat Department, to conduct an inquiry to fix responsibility of the erring officials, the forum awarded the complainant a compensation of Rs 45,000.

Consumer forum tells PFC to compensate RTI applicant Rajni Shaleen Chopra, Posted: Apr 12, 2012 at 0104 hrs IST Chandigarh 73-year-old from Kotkapura complained that Punjab Financial Corp gave him wrong info, gets Rs 50,000 relief An RTI applicant who suffered loss due to wrong information given by Punjab Financial Corporation (PFC) has been awarded Rs 50,000 compensation by Chandigarh Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. Forum President P D Goel and Member Dr Madanjit Kaur Sahota have also directed the PFC assistant public information officer to pay Rs 5,000 to Balraj Kalra, a 73-year-old resident of Kotkapura, Punjab. In his complaint, Kalra had stated that in June 2011, he applied to the Corporation for some information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. He stated that by giving wrong information, PFC played a fraud with his wife Parkash Kumari by selling land which was not owned by it. Kalra added that on account of the wrong information, his wife had to pay the cost of land plus other expenses amounting to Rs 2.8 lakh to the Corporation. He added that PFC was deficient in service towards him and also guilty of unfair trade practice. In its reply, PFC stated that Kalra could not be regarded as a consumer of the Corporation. It denied that wrong or irrelevant/ incomplete information was supplied to him. PFC denied that any fraud had been played with Kalras wife by selling the land of which the corporation was not the owner. PFC highlighted that the property sold to Kalras wife was on lease with Punjab Small Industries and Export Corporation (PSIEC). PFC said that it had only sold the leasehold rights of the property concerned, which is permissible under law. After considering the case, the Forum observed that going by the statutes of the Consumer Protection Act, Kalra was a consumer of the Corporation. The Forum stated that when PFC sold the land to Kalras wife, it was the lawful duty of the Corporation to supply information regarding the land as demanded by him.

The Forum noted that instead, PFC supplied him incomplete and jumbled information and he was aggrieved by this action. The Forum held that, hence, PFC had been grossly deficient in rendering proper services to the complainant and had indulged in unfair trade practice. In this right, the Forum directed the Corporation to compensate the complainant accordingly.

http://www.rtiindia.org /forum/98425-consumer-court-holdsinformation-panel-liable-deficiency-service.html#post240843 Notice format

How to prepare a notice
The notice may be prepared in the style given below, and sent by registered acknowledgement-due post, courier, fax. The complainant should retain the proof of posting. Dated: dd-mm-yyyy The Managing Director ABC Engineering Works Gala No. 22, XYZ Compound Gandhi Nagar Mumbai 400602 SUB: NOTICE BEFORE FILING CONSUMER COMPLAINT Dear Sir, 1) Give details of your purchased of product or service (cash memo number and date). 2) Give information about the warranty or guarantee promised to you at the time of purchase. 3) Give details of the deficiency in the product or service. 4) List the problems you are facing due to this deficiency. 5) Give the details about your efforts to inform about this grievance in the past to which the party has not responded. 6) Give a time limit of at least 15 to 30 days to settle your grievance by asking for refund of full amount with suitable interest (18%), or replacement of the product along with suitable compensation, else you will file a complaint with the Consumer Court as you are protected under the Consumer Protection Act of 1986. 7) Inform that the consumer complaint will be at his cost and expenses, and you will seek compensation for the mental agony caused due to his deficiency in services. Yours truly,

Your signature, name, and address

======== How to serve notice to the opposite party

The notice can be served to the opposite party through following modes: - Registered acknowledgement due post - Certificate of posting - Courier - Fax transmission - Hand delivery Please note: You should retain the proof of posting (also called proof of service) with you. You may be required to submit this in the court.

===========

re: IS RTI applicant a consumer as defined under Consumer Protection Act - See the details in this post.
NCDRC has not treated RTI applicant as consumer because applicant has other remedies under RTI Act. In this connection Commission should have taken section 3 of CPA which reads as under, into consideration: 3. Act not in derogation of any other law.- The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. It is settled principle that if citizen has multiple choices to approach for redressal, he can decide which route to take. It is his prerogative. Following paras' are worth considering: The Honble Supreme Court in State of U.P. & Others Versus Jeet S. Bisht & Anr., 2007 (3) CLT 10, wherein the Honble Supreme Court has specifically held that court cannot add or substitute word in a statute. By judicial verdict the court cannot amend the law made by the Parliament or State Legislature. It has been further held by the Honble Supreme Court in the said authority that mere a direction of the Honble Supreme Court without laying down any principle of law is not a precedent. It is only where the Honble Supreme Court lays down a principle of law that will amount to a precedent. The courts are subordinate to law and not above the law.

It was further held by the Honble Supreme Court that if parties approach both the Forums created under any other Act and the 1986 Act (Consumer Protection Act, 1986), it is for the Forum under the 1986 Act to leave the parties either to proceed or avail the remedies before the other Forums depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. [mostly in Chairman, Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation Versus Consumer Protection Council, (1995) 2 SCC 479] 23. The Honble Supreme Court of India in Neeraj Munjal and Others Versus Atul Grover (Minor) and another, 2005 (3) CLT 30, in para 10 and 11 of the judgment has held that the courts could not deprive the parties from a remedy, which is otherwise available to them in law. It has been further held that a court of law has no jurisdiction to direct a matter to be governed by one statute when provisions of another statute are available. 24. In State of U.P. & Others Versus Jeet S. Bisht & Anr., 2007 (3) CLT 10 (supra), the Honble Supreme Court has held that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been enacted for better protection of the interest of the consumers. The said Act is in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of the any other law for the time being in force. I am attaching NCDRC judgement dated 31-03-2011. I could not locate judgement dated 14-09-2010 in appeal No. 1163/2010 of Karnataka State CDRC. Decision of Bellary Dist CDF dated 07-012010 of CC No. 111/2009 is posted at FILED ON: . http://164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/18530CC-111-09.htm