In a trend-setting order, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has upheld the right to approach consumer fora when information sought under Right to Information Act (RIA) is not furnished to an applicant.
In other words, when information is not made available to an applicant, he can approach consumer fora for deficiency of service under the Consumer Protection Act (CPA).
Upholding the order of the Mysore District Consumer Forum, the NCDRC has observed, “The case would fall within the scope and ambit of Section 2 of CP Act, which provides that service means service of any description which is made available to potential users, which include purveying of news or supplying of other information.”
Referring to the revision petition in this case, S P Thirumala Rao, a consultant physician of Mysore vs. the Municipal Commissioner, Mysore City Municipal Corporation (MCC), the NCDRC said, “The complainant had availed of the services under the said Act for consideration by paying fee and had sought information, which was not supplied to him, which amounts to deficiency of service.”
Under the RI Act, an applicant will have paid Rs 10 along with his application and hence, according to the NCDRC order of May 28 last, such an applicant will become a ‘consumer’ under the CPA.
Rao had sought information from the MCC about a private telephone provider who had dug up the footpath in front of his clinic, for laying telephone cables and had failed to restore the footpath in original condition after the job.
The MCC failed to respond to his two RI applications within the prescribed 15 days.
Denied of the information, he had approached the Mysore District Forum complaining of deficiency of service. The MCC submitted to the Forum that it could not furnish the information sought by the applicant due to heavy work.
Upholding the right of the applicant to approach the District Forum as a ‘Consumer’, the Forum had directed the MCC to pay Rs 500 to the complainant as a “nominal damage would be sufficient as a token of recognition of valuable Right to Information.” However, the Karnataka State Consumer Grievances Redressal Commission set aside the Forum order holding that since no communication was sent to the complainant within 15 days, it was a case of deemed rejection against which the remedy of appeal to next higher authority was provided in the RI Act.
Aggrieved by this, Rao approached the NCDRC. Allowing his appeal, the NCDRC said though the RI Act provided for penalties under Section 9 of the Act, yet it did not provide for any remedy to the consumers who have sought information for deficiency of service in the nature of compensation or damages for not furnishing the information.
Hailing the NCDRC order, Rao told Business Standard that the order provided one more remedy to an RI applicant. He can approach consumer fora when information was not furnished to him.
