Tuesday, March 27, 2012

बीमा कंपनी को सबक सिखाया उपभोक्ता फोरम ने

एक बीमाधारक को क्लेम राशि देने में आनाकानी करेन वाली  बीमा कंपनी को इन्दौर के उपभोक्ता फोरम ने अच्छा सबक सिखाया। एक मामूली कागजी गलती की आड़ में बीमा कंपनी पीड़ित महिला को मेडीक्लेम देने से इंकार कर रही थी। फोरम ने पीड़ित महिला को १ लाख ९० हजार रुपए देने के आदेश दिए हैं।

इन्दौर की सुलोचन जैन ने उपभोक्ता फोरम में नेशनल इंश्योरेंस कंपनी लिमिटेड, पेरामाउंट हेल्थ केयर सर्विस व क्योरवेल हॉस्पिटल के विरुद्ध सेवा में कमी का मामला दर्ज करते हुए कहा था कि  उनका स्वास्थ्य खराब होने के कारण परिजनों ने क्योरवेल हॉस्पिटल में भर्ती किया था। स्वास्थ्य में सुधार नहीं होने पर कुम्बाहिल हॉस्पिटल एवं हार्ट इंस्टीट्यूट मुंबई में भर्ती किया गया। इलाज के बाद परिवादी ने बीमा कंपनी के समक्ष क्लेम प्रस्तुत किया तो कंपनी ने यह कहकर क्लेम देने से इंकार कर दिया कि परिवादी को २४ वर्षों से हाईपरटेंशन की बीमारी है। परिवादी ने फोरम को बताया कि उन्हें २ वर्ष से बीमारी है, अस्पताल की गलती के कारण २४ वर्ष लिखा गया। फोरम ने परिवादी द्वारा प्रस्तुत तथ्यों को स्वीकार कर बीमा कंपनी को सेवा में कमी का दोषी मानते हुए 1.90 लाख की राशि तत्काल देने के आदेश दिए। 

बैंक की कार्रवाई आदमी का मांस नोंचने जैसी

 साभार : पत्रिका
जयपुर। बैंक की कार्रवाई जिंदा आदमी के मांस नोचने जैसी है, ग्राहकों को लूटने का जीता जागता उदाहरण पेश किया है बैक ने यह तल्ख टिप्पणी की है जिला उपभोक्ता संरक्षण मंच ने। लोन के बकाया 43 पैसे के बदले एक रूपए का चेक लेने के बाद भी 1032.55 रूपए का बकाया निकालने पर जिला उपभोक्ता संरक्षण मंच ने निजी बैंक पर 10 लाख का जुर्माना ठोका है।मंच ने यह आदेश बरकत नगर के शान्ति निकेतन कॉलोनी निवासी रजनीकांत शर्मा के परिवाद पर दिया।

मिलेगा पच्चीस हजार का हर्जाना
मंच ने माना कि परिवादी की ओर से राशि अदा करने पर 43 पैसे बाकी रहे थे। यह राशि 50 पैसे से कम थी इसलिए इतनी राशि राइट ऑफ कर देनी चाहिए थी। मंच ने हर्जाने में से 25 हजार रूपए परिवादी को और बाकी रकम राज्य उपभोक्ता कल्याण कोष में दिए जाने का आदेश दिया। परिवादी को पांच हजार रूपए परिवाद व्यय के रूप में देने के आदेश दिए।

43 पैसे यूं बन गए 1032 रूपए
रजनीकांत ने आईसीआईसीआई बैंक से 2008 में 1.75 लाख रूपए का पर्सनल लोन लिया था। कुल 48 किश्तों में यह लोन उसे
चुकाना था।

31 जनवरी 2009 को उसने कुल बकाया 1,66,677.43 रूपए के लिए 1,66,677 रूपए चेक देकर जमा कर दिए। अगले महीने ही बैंक ने 43 पैसे का बकाया बताकर स्टेटमेंट जारी कर दिया।

रजनीकांत ने फिर एक रूपए का बैंक को चेक देकर नोडयूज सर्टिफिकेट भेजने का आग्रह किया। इसके बाद बैंक ने चेक प्राप्ति के सौ रूपए व उस पर 10.30 रूपए सेवाकर जोड़ कर फिर स्टेटमेंट जारी कर दिया।

मई 2009 में बैंक ने फिर स्टेटमेंट जारी कर पुराना बकाया 109.73 पर विलम्ब शुल्क 400 रूपए तथा उस पर ब्याज व सेवाकर जोड़ कर 1032.55 रूपए बकाया बता दिए।

बजाज कम्पनी को बाईक के बदले रुपए लौटाने के आदेश

रतलाम,25 सितम्बर (इ खबर टुडे)। विभिन्न मोटर साईकिल कंपनिया जैसे विज्ञापन दिखाती है,वास्तव में वाहन उतने अच्छे नहीं होते। विज्ञापनों से प्रभावित होकर क्रेता वाहन खरीद लेते है लेकिन बाद में उन्हे परेशानियां उठाना पडती है। ऐसे ही एक मामले में जिला उपभोक्ता फोरम ने बजाज आटो लिमिटेड पूना और इसके स्थानीय डीलर शैरानी बजाज मोटर्स प्रा.लि.को सेवा में त्रुटि का दोषी मानते हुए ग्राहक का वाहन वापस लेकर राशि लौटाने के निर्देश दिए है।
 जिला उपभोक्त विवाद प्रतितोषण फोरम में कोठारीवास निवासी सुशील कुमार गांधी ने परिवाद पत्र दायर कर बताया था कि बजाज आटो लिमिटेड पूना द्वारा निर्मित बजाज एक्स सीडी 125 मोटर साईकिल,बजाज के स्थानीय डीलर शीरानी बजाज मोटर्स प्रा.लि.के माध्यम से छियालिस हजार चार सौ रुपए में दिनांक 29 मई 2008 को क्रय की थी। वाहन विक्रेता तथा निर्माता कंपनी द्वारा मोटर साईकिल के सम्बन्ध में दो वर्ष या तीस हजार किमी. चलने तक की वारंटी दी गई थी।
 गाडी खरीदने के बाद से ही क्रेता को मोटर साईकिल कई तरह की परेशानियां देने लगी। कभी गाडी एयर ले लेती तो कभी लोड नहीं लेती। कंपनी द्वारा घोषित एवरेज भी नहीं मिल पा रहा था।  परिवादी ने फ्री सर्विसिंग के दौरान डीलर को अपनी समस्या बताई लेकिन डीलर द्वारा समस्या हल नहीं की गई। पेड सर्विस के समय भी परिवादी ने अपनी समस्या बताई लेकिन समस्या हल नहीं हुई। परेशान होकर परिवादी ने अपने अभिभाषक के माध्यम से एक सूचना पत्र भी प्रेषित करवाया। बाद में परिवादी ने जब अपने स्तर पर जांच कराई तो उन्हे पता चला कि वाहन में निर्माण सम्बन्धी त्रुटि है। विवादित गाडी के माडल में निर्माण संबन्धी त्रुटि होने से बजाज कंपनी ने उक्त माडल का निर्माण ही बन्द कर दिया।
 आखिरकार परिवादी ने उपभोक्ता संरक्षण अधिनियम के तहत 8 फरवरी 2010 को फोरम के समक्ष परिवाद प्रस्तुत किया।जिला उपभोक्त फोरम ने परिवादी और प्रतिप्रार्थी दोनों पक्षों द्वारा प्रस्तुत साक्ष्यों और तर्को को सुनने के बाद मोटर साईकिल में मैन्यूफैक्चरिंग डिफेक्ट होने के आरोप सही पाया।
 जिला उपभोक्ता फोरम ने वाहन में मैन्यूफैक्चरिंग डिफेक्ट होने पर बजाज कंपनी और शैरानी बजाज मोटर्स प्रा.लि.को मोटर साईकिल वापस लेकर 46 हजार चार सौ रुपए लौटाने के निर्देश दिए। फोरम ने परिवाद को हुए मानसिक त्रास के लिए दो हजार रुपए तथा वाद व्यय के लिए एक हजार रु.देने के भी निर्देश दिए। एक माह में संपूर्ण राशि नहीं देने पर परिवादी को आठ प्रतिशत ब्याज देने के निर्देश भी फोरम ने दिए है।

रोडवेज को भारी पड़ा पत्रकार राजेंद्र गुंजल को सीट न देना

अजमेर। वोल्वो बस में रिजर्वेशन के बावजूद यात्री को सीट उपलब्ध नहीं कराना राजस्थान रोडवेज को महंगा पड़ गया। रोडवेज को सेवा में कमी और लापरवाही का दोषी मानते हुए उपभोक्ता मंच ने पीड़ित यात्री को साढ़े पांच हजार रुपए हर्जाना चुकाने के आदेश दिए हैं।
एक सीट, यात्री 2 : मंच के समक्ष वरिष्ठ पत्रकार राजेंद्र गुंजल ने वकील सूर्यप्रकाश गांधी के जरिए परिवाद पेश किया था। गुंजल का कहना था कि वे अधिस्वीकृत पत्रकार हैं। वे रोडवेज की वोल्वो व एसी बसों के अलावा अन्य बसों में निशुल्क यात्रा के हकदार हैं। 13 जून 2011 को उन्हें दिल्ली जाना था। इसके लिए साधारण बस की जगह वोल्वो बस में एक दिन पहले 225 रुपए अदा कर रिजर्वेशन कराने पर सीट नंबर 11 दी गई। यात्रा तिथि को जब परिवादी बस में सवार हुए तो उनकी रिजर्व सीट का टिकट अन्य महिला यात्री को दे दिया गया। परिवादी द्वारा सीट रिजर्व होने का हवाला देने पर महिला ने भी अपना टिकट दिखा दिया। बस में कोई सीट खाली नहीं होने पर गुंजल को कंडक्टर की सीट पर यात्रा करनी पड़ी। सीट आरामदायक व पुश बैक नहीं होने से परिवादी की यात्रा कष्टदायक रही।
रोडवेज ने मानी गलती : रोडवेज ने आरक्षित सीट अन्य को देने की बात तो मानी लेकिन कंडक्टर सीट पर यात्रा से इनकार किया। परिवादी ने टिकट पेश किया जिस पर स्पष्ट लिखा था कि कंडक्टर परिवादी को अपनी सीट पर ले जा रहा है।
साढ़े पांच हजार का जुर्माना : मंच अध्यक्ष कमलराज सिंघवी और सदस्य रेनु द्विवेदी ने परिवाद मंजूर कर निर्णय में कहा कि रोडवेज ने लापरवाही और सेवा में कमी की है। मंच ने रोडवेज को आदेश दिया कि परिवादी को क्षतिपूर्ति व परिवाद व्यय के रूप में साढ़े पांच हजार रुपए अदा करे। साभार : भास्‍कर

49 पैसे ज्यादा वसूलना भारी पड़ा- 17 हजार का जुर्माना

49 पैसे अधिक वसूलना एक रेस्टोरेंट को भरी पड़ गया . एक रेस्टोरेंट मालिक को ग्राहक से खाने के बिल में 49 पैसे ज्यादा वसूल करने पर बिफरे ग्राहक ने उपभोक्ता अदालत का सहारा  लिया और रेस्टोरेंट को 12 हजार रु. तथा 5000 रु. उपभोक्ता कल्याण कोष समिति में जमा कराना पड़ गया.
जिला उपभोक्ता मंच में न्यू सांगानेर निवासी छोटूलाल कुमावत ने परिवाद दायर किया था कि 28 दिसंबर 08 को उसने इस रेस्टोरेंट में खाना खाया था. बिल 436.51 रु. दिया गया, लेकिन वसूले 437 रु.। परिवादी ने आरोप लगाया कि जब 49 पैसे मांगे गए तो उसका मजाक उड़ाया गया और धक्के देकर रेस्टोरेंट से निकाल दिया गया. उपभोक्ता मामलों की अदालत ने रेस्टोरेंट पर 17 हजार रु. का हर्जाना किया है.
जयपुर जिला उपभोक्ता मंच (प्रथम) के अध्यक्ष के.के. भार्गव ने इसे अनफेयर ट्रेड प्रैक्टिस का मामला बताते हुए कानजी रेस्टारेंट के संचालक को परिवादी को मानसिक क्षतिपूर्ति व परिवाद खर्च के लिए 12 हजार रु. तथा 5000 रु. उपभोक्ता कल्याण कोष समिति में जमा कराने के निर्देश दिए। आदेशों की पालना एक माह में करने को कहा गया है
Link : http://samachartoday.in/2010/10/15/cosumerprotection/

Monday, March 26, 2012

Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum



Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at
_________________________


1.    [complainant name], [complainant address].
            …Complainant
                                                            Versus

2.    . [company name], [company registered office address]
[add more party if the company has branch office in your city]

                                                                                                                                                  …Opposite Party

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. That the Complainant is a resident of [Complainant’s Address] and had [describe the issue].
 That the facts of the present case, in brief, are as follows.
2. ___________________________________________________________________ [Briefly describe facts of the complaint in point numbers 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6].
3. That the __________________________________________________________.
 4. That _____________________________________________________________.
5. That _____________________________________________________________.
 
6.  That the complainant is unhappy with the service meted out to him and he stands on very firm legal ground in claiming __________________________. This apathetic and apparently deceitful attitude of the opposite party reflects its indifference to the complainant’s plight. [Add a case law if available].
7. That this Hon’ble Forum has got pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this Complaint as the compensation claimed does not exceed Rs.____________/-. [In case of district forum enter amount Rs. 20,00,000/-, State Forum enter Rs. 1 crore and in case of National Forum enter more than 1 crore]
8. That this Hon’ble Forum has got the jurisdiction to adjudicate and decide the same as the opposite party have a branch office [or head office] in __________. Hence, the matter falls within the territorial jurisdiction of this forum.
9. That the Opposite Party have inflicted enormous amount of mental agony and financial loss on the Complainant.
10. That the present complaint is within the limitation as prescribed under the Act because the deficient service was provided to the Complainant by the Opposite Party.
11. That the Complainant has not filed any such or similar complaint before Hon’ble Court. No such or similar complaint is pending adjudication before any competent court of law. 

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to:-
i)     direct the opposite party to apologize for all the inconvenience caused to the Complainant;
ii)    direct the opposite party to make up for the mistake by refunding the full ticket amount to the complainant;
iii)   pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards the physical strain and mental agony suffered by the Complainant and his family members; and
iv)   direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- towards cost of this petition
         
For which act of kindness, the Complainant shall, as is duty bound, ever pray.                                                                                        
[Place]                                                                        Complainant
            Dated                                                                        
           
Verification:-
Verified that the contents of Para nos. 1 to 11 of the complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. No part of it is false and nothing has been concealed there from.

[Place]
Dated:                                                                                    Complainant








AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THE COMPLAINT
Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum –_________

Complaint No. _______________ of 2011

[complainant name], [complainant address].
            …Complainant
                                                            Versus

. [company name], [company registered office address]

                                                                                                                                                  …Opposite Party
AFFIDAVIT
Affidavit of [Complainant name and address]
I the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:-
1.         That I am the complainant in the above case, thoroughly conversant with the facts and circumstances of the present case and competent to swear this affidavit.
2.         That the facts contained in my accompanying complaint, the contents of which have not been repeated herein for the sake of brevity may be read as an integral part of this affidavit and are true and correct to my knowledge.
[Place]
Dated:                                                                                    Deponent     
Verification:-
                  I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly verify that the contents of my above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge. No part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therein.
Verified this .......day of 20.......at........
[Place]                                                               
Date:                                                                                       Deponent

WRITTEN ARGUMENTS FOR ADMISSION OF COMPLAINT FOR RTI


BEFORE THE HON’BLE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, AT:

Consumer Complaint [C.C.] No:                    /2012

Between
AAAAA                                                                          …Complainant
And
BBBBB                                                                   ...Opposite Party


WRITTEN ARGUMENTS FOR ADMISSION OF COMPLAINT

The complainant humbly submits the below:

  1. Humbly submits that the section 2(1)(o) of The Consumer Protection Act, clearly covers the process of purveying information. The relevant part is reproduced here - "service" means service of any description which is made available to potential (users and includes the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, 2[housing construction] entertainment, amusement or the PURVEYING OF NEWS OR OTHER INFORMATION, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service; Meaning of the word PURVEYING - TO PROVIDE. Hence, based on the above mentioned clause, the complainant, who has paid RTI application fee, is a consumer under the CPA.

  1. Humbly submits that as per section 2(1)(o) of Consumer Protection Act, in short CP Act, the complainant is consumer and the complainant relies on the citations:

    1. Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in revision petition No. 1975 of 2005 [in appeal No. 244/04 relating to complaint of Dr. S.P Thirumala Rao v/s Municipal Commissioner, Mysore] decided on 28-05-2009. In this decision, it has been decided, interalia that applicant under RTI Act is a consumer under The Consumer Protection Act 1986. It has been decided, interalia that applicant under RTI Act is a consumer under The Consumer Protection Act 1986.

    1. Humbly submit that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “State of U.P. & Others Versus Jeet S. Bisht & Anr., 2007 (3) CLT 10”, wherein the Hon’ble 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.
    2. Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in revision petition No. Revision Petition No. 2774 of 2004 (in Appeal No. 931 of 2003 of the State Commission, Uttranchal) decided on 03.09.2004.

    1. The recent decision of II Addl. DCDRF, Seshadripuram, Bangalore decision dated: 30th day of November 2011 in the case of Complaint No: 1714/2011.

  1. Humbly submit that the Opposite Party failed to serve the complainant as per the RTI Act provision by supplying the appropriate information with the appropriate reasoning by invoking the appropriate sections of RTI Act, that amounts to deficiency of the service and the point wise details are described in the complaint.

  1. The Hon’ble 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.

  1. Further submit that the remedy available to the complainant in the RTI Act is limited and there is no remedy for the deficiency of service of OP in RTI Act. 

  1. Further submit the remedy that the complainant seeking in this complaint is for the deficiency of the service of the Public Authority/Public Information Officer which is not available under the RTI Act and the remedy that is available in the RTI Act is limited whereas the under the CP Act the consumer is liable to get more and additional remedy and/or benefits.

  1. Humbly submit that the complainant invokes the section 3 of CP Act and approached this Hon’ble Forum and the complainant relies on the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India judgments cited below:

    1. In “State of U.P. & Others Versus Jeet S. Bisht & Anr., 2007 (3) CLT 10” (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that

                                         i.    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. Also the Hon’ble 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.

                                       ii.    Also held that that mere a direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court without laying down any principle of law is not a precedent. It is only where the Hon’ble 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.

                                      iii.    It was further held by the Hon’ble 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].

    1. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Fair Air Engineers Pvt. Ltd. & ANR. Versus N.K. Modi, III (1996) CPJ 1 (SC)” has held that
“Accordingly, it must be held that the provisions of the Act are to be construed widely to give effect to the object and purpose of the Act. It is seen that Section 3 envisages that the provisions of the Act are in addition to and are not in derogation of any other law in force.

  1. Humbly submit that the complainant also humbly invites kind attention of this Hon’ble Forum to important judgement dated 05-11-1993 of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Lucknow Development Authority V/s. M.K. Gupta [1994 AIR 787, 1994 SCC (1) 243, JT 1993 (6) 307, 1993 SCALE (4)370].

  1. Further submit that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in “Ghaziabad Development Authority Versus Balbir Singh, 2004 (2) CLT 628”, has held that the Consumer Protection Act has a wide reach and the Commission has jurisdiction in case of services referred by the statutory and public authorities. The provisions of the Consumer Protection Act enable a consumer to claim and empower the Commission to redress any injustice done. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said authority further held that matters, which require immediate attention, should not be allowed to linger on. The consumer must not be made to run from pillar to post. Where there has been capricious or arbitrary or negligent exercise or non-exercise of power by an officer of the authority, the Commission/Forum has a statutory obligation to award compensation.

  1. Further submit that in Kishore Lal Versus Chairman, Employees’ State Insurance Corporation, 2007 (4) SCC 579, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed:-
“It has been held in numerous cases of this Court that jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora has to be construed liberally so as to bring many cases under it for their speedy disposal. The Act being a beneficial legislation, it should receive a liberal construction.”

  1. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in “Lucknow Development Authority Versus M.K. Gupta, 1994 (1) CLT 1” has observed that a legislation which is enacted to protect public interest from undesirable activities cannot be construed in such narrow manner as to frustrate its objective. It has been further observed in the said authority that any attempt to exclude services offered by statutory or official bodies to the common man would be against the provisions of the Act and spirit behind it. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has further observed that truly speaking it would be a service to the society if such bodies instead of claiming exclusion subject themselves to the Act and let their acts and omissions scrutinized, as public accountability is necessary for healthy growth of society.

  1. In “General Manager, Telecom Versus M. Krishnan & Others” (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the special law prevails over the general law. But the point whether the Consumer Protection Act is a special enactment or a general law has not been discussed. On the other hand, in view of the other judgments, reference of which has been given above, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has declared the Consumer Protection Act as a special legislation. Time and again it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court of country that where a law is declared after thorough discussion, only then it is held as a binding precedent and not otherwise. His Lordship Markandey Katuj, J. in “State of U.P. Versus Jeet S. Bisht” (supra), in para No.66 and 67 of the judgment has observed as under :-

“66. It is well settled that a mere direction of the Supreme Court without laying down any principle of law is not a precedent. It is only where the Supreme Court lays down a principle of law that it will amount to a precedent.

67. In Municipal Committee, Amritsar Vs. Hazara Singh, AIR 1975 SC 1087, the Supreme Court observed that only a statement of law in a decision is binding. In State of Punjab Vs. Baldev Singh, 1999 (6) SCC 172, this Court observed that everything in a decision is not a precedent. In Delhi Administration Vs. Manoharlal, AIR 2002 SC 3088, the Supreme Court observed that a mere direction without laying down any principle of law is not a precedent. In Divisional Controller, KSRTC vs.ahadeva Shetty, 2003 (7) SCC 197, this Court observed as follows:

“….. The decision ordinarily is a decision on the case before the Court, while the principle underlying the decision would be binding as a precedent in a case which comes up for decision subsequently. The scope and authority of a precedent should never be expanded unnecessarily beyond the needs of a given situation. The only thing binding as an authority upon a subsequent judge is the principle, upon which the case was decided…..”.

  1. I submit that the below decisions of various District Forums are in support of my claim:

    1. The decision dated: 30.11.2011 of IInd ADDL. DCDRF, Bangalore in case of Complaint Case No. CC/1714/2011, dated: 30.11.2011.
    2. The decision dated: 19/05/2011 of the DCDRF, FARIDKOT in case of Complaint No: 102/2011.
    3. The decision dated: 09/11/2011 of the DCDRF, LUDHIANA in case of Complaint No: 662/2011.
    4. The decision dated: 25/03/2011 of the DCDRF, TUTICORAN in case of Complaint No: 59/2010.
    5. The decision dated: 29/04/2011 of the DCDRF, VIZIANAGARAM in case of Complaint No: 116/2010.
    6. The decision dated: 21/01/2011 of the SCDRC, CHENNAI in case of F.A.NO.493/2006.
    7. The decision dated: 28.05.2009 of IInd ADDL. DCDRF, Bangalore in case of consumer case(CC) No. CC/162/2009.
    8.  The decision dated: 20/04/2010 of the DCDRF, MANDI, H.P in case of Complaint No: 14/2009.
    9. The decision dated: 21/05/2009 of the DCDRF, SOUTH MUMBAI  DISTRICT in case of Complaint No: SMF/MUM/301/2009.

14. I submit that the other arguments will be placed before the Hon’ble Commission at the time of hearing.

Date:
Place:                                                                         Sig:


BEFORE THE HON’BLE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, AT:


Consumer Complaint No:             /2012



Between
AAAA                  …Complainant

And
BBBB                     Opposite Party.








WRITTEN ARGUMENTS FOR ADMISSION OF COMPLAINT









FILED ON:

FILED BY:
                        (Party-In-Person)


Consumer complaint &Guide for RTI

Guest Post by J. P. Shah Junagadh [Gujarat]
                         


COMPLAINT

            BEFORE THE HON’BLE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

                        REDRESSAL FORUM AT _______________

In RE: Consumer Complaint [C.C.] No. ______ of ______[ for office use]

In the matter of:

[Mention your name and address]……………..................................Complainant

Versus

[Mention designation of head of office /organisation and his address]

………………….................Opposite party No. 1

SPIO/CPIO [Mention office address of SPIO/CPIO]

 ........................................ Opposite party No. 2



Compaint under section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act 1986.

The complainant above named most respectfully showeth as under;

1. a. That the Complainant is a [mention your occupation e.g. Professor at ____ College or Manager of a private company or doctor having private practice etc]

b.That opposite party No. 1 is a [mention brief details of opposite party e.g.
Public Sector Bank having Head Office at ______or is a department of  Gujarat State Govt or University under Karnataka State law etc]

c. Opposite Party [OP] No. 2 is the SPIO/CPIO of OP No. 1

2. That brief facts of complaint are as under:

2.1 That the complainant had filed an application dated _______  under section 6.1 of The Right to Information Act 2005 [RTI Act for brevity], seeking certain information. It was received by the opposite party on or about [date]_______. Filing fee of Rs. ___ was paid through prescribed stamps/postal order. Photocopies of RTI application, postal receipt of mailing and acknowledgement are attached herewith.

2.2 That the SPIO/CPIO of the OP did not supply information nor replied within period of 30 days as mandated u/s 7.1 of  RTI Act  till filing of this complaint.

OR

2.2 That the SPIO/CPIO of the OP supplied incomplete / irrelevant / defective information vide his letter No. ______ dated _____ [photocopy enclosed]. Following are the defects in information supplied:

a. Information is supplied beyond period of 30 days mandated under RTI Act.

b. Inspection of record is not permitted though requested in RTI application.

c. Query wise deficiencies are attached herewith as per annexute to this complaint.

3. That thus there has been gross deficiency in service and / or supply of defective information by the opposite party. [delete inapplicable]

4. Complainant had served consumer notice dated ______ on opposite parties. Photocopies of notice, proof of mailing and acknowledgement are attached herewith.

5. The complainant is a consumer under Section 2(1) (o) of The Consumer Protection Act. Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in revision petition No. 1975 [in appeal No. 244/04 relating to complaint of Dr. S.P Thirumala Rao v/s Municipal Commissioner, Mysore] interalia decided on               28-05-2009, that applicant under RTI Act is a consumer under The Consumer Protection Act 1986. [copy is enclosed]

6. That Hon’ble District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forums as under have ordered supply of information and compensation to applicants of RTI Act 2005:

a. Decision dated 30.11.2011 of II Addl Bangalore in CC/1714/2011,
b. Decision dated 19/05/2011 of Faridkot in  CC/102/2011.
c. Decision dated 09/11/2011 of Ludhiana in CC/ 662/2011.
d. Decision dated 25/03/2011 of Tuticorin in CC/59/2010.
e. Decision dated 29/04/2011of  Vizianagaram in CC/ 116/2010
f,  Decision dated 08/09/2011 of Mohali  in CC/249/2011
g. Decision dated 28.05.2009 of IInd Addl. Bangalore in CC/162/2009.
h. Decision dated 20/04/2010 of  Mandi, H.P in CC/14/2009.
i.  Decision dated 21/05/2009 of Mumbai South  in SMF/MUM/301/2009.
j.  Decision dated 24/05/2011 of  Nizamabad in CC/41/2010
k. Decision dated 29/11/2011 of Pune in F/564/2010
l.  Decision dated 07/01/2011 of Guntur in CC/204/2010
m. Decision dated 08/09/2011 of Mohali  in CC/249/2011
n  Decision dated 29/12/2011 of Salem  in C.C. NO.54/2011
o. Decision dated 03/02/2011 of Tuticorin in CC/57/2010
p. Decision dated 24/08/2011 of Medak in CC/10/2011
q. Decision dated 02/12/2010 of Nagpur Addl in CC No. 140/ 2010
r  Decision dated 27/12/2010 of  Vizianagaram in CC/ 118/2010
s. Decision dated 21/01/2011of Vizianagaram in CC/ 124/2010
t.  Decision dated 11/05/2011of  Naupada in CC/ 08/2011

7. That this complaint is within the territorial jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Forum as the opposite parties have their offices  at the addresses mentioned aforesaid. Since the claim is valued at Rs. ________ it is within pecuniary  jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum.

8. That cause of action arose on _______, when said RTI application remained unreplied after completion of mandated time of 30 days.

OR on _______[date] when the complainant received defective information from SPIO/CPIO.

[delete inapplicable]

and cause of action also arose when OPs failed to respond to consumer notice dated ______ within time specified therein.

Thus this complaint is filed within limitation period of 2 years.

8. Complainant has filed first appeal on ______ with Appellate Authority of OP. Appellate authority has:

a. not replied to appeal till filing of this complaint  
OR b. upheld reply of SPIO/CPIO
OR  c. any other reason
[delete inapplicable]

9. Complainant has filed complaint / second appeal to State Information Commission / Central Information Commission on ________ and the same is pending as on date of filing of this complaint.

10. Complainant humbly submits that above commission will not look in to this matter from the point of view of deficiency in service or breach of consumer rights under The Consumer Protection Act 1986 and hence there is no bar of duplication.

11. That complainant humbly prays for following relief and directions:

a. The opposite party be directed to supply correct and complete information sought by the complainant. Inspection be also ordered as per RTI Act.

b.  The opposite party to pay Rs. 50000/- [ Rs. Fifty thousand only]  to the complainant for compensation for harassment, mental agony, delay, breach of consumer rights  and expenses of Rs. 1000/- etc.

c. Any other relief that this Hon’ble Forum be pleased to grant to the complainant to meet ends of justice.

11. That for the purpose of fees, the complaint is valued at Rs. 51000/-and accordingly postal order / bank pay order / demand draft No ________for Rs.100/- of ________Bank /post office is attached herewith.

12. That complainant also humbly invites kind attention of this Hon’ble Forum to important judgement dated 05-11-1993 of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Lucknow Development Authority V/s. M.K. Gupta [1994 AIR 787, 1994 SCC (1) 243, JT 1993 (6) 307, 1993 SCALE (4)370].

13. That complainant reserves the rights to add, amend and/or delete any grounds in this complaint as and when necessary.

At ___________[ Place]   _____day of _____ 20___


Complainant­­­­: ______________

                                       Verification:

I, the complainant above named, do hereby solemnly verify that the
contents of  above complaint are true and correct to  best of  my knowledge
and belief, no part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therein.


Verified this _____ day of  _______ 20 __ at ________ [place]

Complainant: ___________

Affidavit

I ______________[full name]   age ___ years resident of ______ do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that as Complainant I am thoroughly conversant with facts and circumstances of the present case and I am competent to swear this affidavit. The facts contained in aforesaid complaint, contents of which are not repeated herein for sake of brevity may be read as an integral part of this affidavit and are correct and true to best of my knowledge and belief.

This _____ day of  _______ 20 12 at _________

Complainant: ___________



NOTARY






________________________________________________________________________


On separate paper:


D- list:

                                         COMPLAINT

            BEFORE THE HON’BLE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

                        REDRESSAL FORUM AT _______________

In RE: Consumer Complaint [C.C.] No. ______ of ______[ for office use]

In the matter of:

[Mention your full name and address]……………..................................Complainant

Versus

[Mention designation of head of office /organisation and his address]

…………………...........Opposite party No. 1

SPIO/CPIO [Mention designation and office address of

SPIO/CPIO] ........................................ Opposite party No. 2



List of documents in support of complaint

[all photocopies]

Particulars                                                    Page No. from-to            


1.   RTI application dated _______                                 1 to ___

2.  Postal acknowledgement of delivery.

3. Mailing postal proof

4. Annexure of query-wise defects

5. Notice under CPAct 1986 dated   _______

6. Proof of mailing notice

7. Acknowlegement of delivery of notice

8. Reply dated _______ of SPIO/CPIO [if any]

9. Reply of first appeal [if any]

10. Copy of judgement dated 28-05-2009 of
hon’ble NCDRC in revision petition No. 1975
[in appeal No. 244/04 ]


Complainant


Short guidelines:

1. Please type on ledger paper in double space after making necessary changes to suit your case.

2. It has to be filed with Consumer Forum [Court] of the district where office of opposite party or spio/cpio is situated.

3. Attach papers as per D list and serially number on right hand top in a circle.

4. Filing fee up to claim of Rs.100000/- [Rs. One lac only] is Rs.100/- payable by postal order or bank pay order or demand draft in favour of “President, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, _______ [place]” payable at the place where complaint is being filed.

5. Complaint has to be notarized.

6. Submit in original + 4 photocopies. Retain one set for your record.

7. Complaint has to be filed within 2 years of cause of action  as stated in complaint.

8 Please visit following websites for further guidance and addresses etc:



9. Non advocate friend who is well worsed in consumer and RTI can also represent or assist you at forum. You have to just give simple authority letter in his favour.

10. NCDRC decision dated 28-05-2009 mentioned at item No. 5 of complaint is posted at http://164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/00RP197505.html

11. You can send completed set by post also or get it delivered at Forum through friend or relatative residing at place of Forum.

12. You may change amount of claim but Rs.50000/- would be reasonable.

13. Please also visit:

Additional Remedy

Consumer Notice
http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/blogs/jps50/1217-notice-under-consumer-protection-act-right-information-act.html