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.

2. 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.

2. 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.
3. 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.

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

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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. 

6. 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.

7. 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].

2. 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.

8. 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].

9. 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.

10. 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.”

11. 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.

12. 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…..”.

13. 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)