The Mysore District Consumer Forum recently ruled (8-3-12 in Case No.
993/2010) that a person who applies for information under the Right to
Information Act, 2005 (RIA) is a consumer under the Consumer Protection
Act (CPA) and failure to provide information asked under the RIA is a
deficiency in service under the CPA. It ordered the DDPI, Mysore, who
failed to provide information, to pay a compensation of Rs. 4000 to the
complainant as well as Rs. 2000 as costs. This judgment exposes many
problems which exist in the consumer court system.
Firstly, the decision of the Mysore DCF relied on a decision of
the National Consumer Commission given on 28-5-09 which said that
failure of public authorities to provide information under the Karnataka
Right to Information Act, 2000 constitutes deficiency of service under
the CPA. The case before the Mysore DCF was concerning an application
for information given under a different law, RIA, which is a central
act. In its order, the Mysore DCF says "As rightly submitted by the
complainant's learned counsel, in the case arising out of this Forum
itself, the Hon'ble National Commission has already held in the case of
Dr. Thirumala Rao V/s City Corporation, Mysore in Revision Petition No.
1975/2005 that the failure of the concerned officer to furnish the
information sought for by the applicant under RTI Act is a deficiency in
service and the complaint is maintainable under the C.P. Act in respect
of such deficiency in service" and proceeds to punish the DDPI for
deficiency in service. But it fails to realize that the National
Commission's ruling related to Karnataka Right to Information Act, 2000
while the complaint before it was related to a different Act, namely,
the central RIA. Since the number of Dr. Thirumala Rao's Revision
Petition before the National Commission is 1975/2005, obviously it was
filed in 2005 and so the original complaint must have been filed before
2005 (It was actually filed in 2003) while the RIA was implemented only
in 2005. So it is clear that Dr. Thirumala Rao's complaint must have
been under a law different from the RIA. But the Mysore DCF failed to
appreciate this important point. Since Karnataka Right to Information
Act, 2000 was repealed in 2005 itself and is no longer in effect, the
decision of the National Commission was not relevant to the case before
the DCF.
It still would have been alright if the National Commission had
not passed any order concerning the relevant issue of whether consumer
courts have jurisdiction in RIA cases. Then Mysore DCF could have drawn a
parallel between the Karnataka Right to Information Act, 2000 and the
RIA and passed correct orders. But the National Commission has passed an
order concerning the jurisdiction of consumer courts in RIA cases, and
what is worse, has passed an opposing order. In Revision Petition No.
4061 of 2010 decided on 14-9-10, the National Commission has ruled that
a person who has filed a petition under the RIA cannot be termed to be a
consumer under the CPA. According to this decision of te National
Commission, public authorities who do not provide information under the
RIA can not be prosecuted under the CPA. So the decision of the Myosre
DCF is in direct violation of the National Commission order on RIA
cases.
Secondly, this decision of the National Commission, though very
important (this might be the only decision the National Commission has
given till now concerning the jurisdiction of consumer courts in RIA
cases), is not available in the website confonet.nic.in
which is maintained by the Government of India and which is supposed to
contain all the judgments given by all the consumer courts in the
country. We found the reference to the National Commission judgment in
the RIA website.
In this order, the National Commission upheld a decision of the the
Karnataka State Consumer Commission which was being appealed against.
The decision of the Karnataka State Commission is also not available on
confonet.nic.in website.The decisions of the State Commission and the National
Commission are binding on lower consumer courts. If they are not put on confonet.nic.in,
how will the lower courts come to know what the upper courts have
ordered? What precedents will they follow? Obviously, the Mysore DCF was
not aware of this decision of the State Commission or the National
Commission since they are nowhere mentioned in the judgment of the DCF.
Thirdly, this decision of the Karnataka State Commission upheld
by the National Commission is flawed. It says that a person who does not
receive information sought under the RIA cannot be considered a
consumer under the CPA since there is a remedy available for the
complainant to approach the appellate authority under Section 19 of the
RIA. It is well-established that the Consumer Protection Act is an
additional remedy available to consumers even when there is another law
which is applicable. Unless there is an express provision in the other
law which ousts the jurisdiction of the Consumer Protection Act (such as
the Railway Claims Tribunal Act regarding railway claims or the Motor
Vehicles Act regarding compensation in road accidents), one can always
make use of the Consumer Protection Act as an easy and inexpensive means
of obtaining justice. This fact has been reiterated countless times
both by the National Commission and the Supreme Court. So the judgment
of the Karnataka Commission and the National Commission that consumer
courts can not decide RIA cases violates earlier orders of the National
Commission and the Supreme Court.
In fact, the same point had been stressed in the earlier
decision of the National Commission in Dr. Thirumala Rao's case. It is
likely that both Karnataka State Commission and the National Commission
were not aware of this earlier decision of the National Commission. This
again illustrates the information gap in the consumer court system.
RIA provides only for punishment of officials who do not provide
information to applicants. Though there is a provision for compensating
the loss suffered by the applicant due to non-supply of information, we
are not aware of any case in which such compensation has been awarded.
Under CPA, obtaining compensation for the loss suffered by the
complainant is routine. So the CPA provides better justice than the RIA.
In summary, the present case exposes the following problems affecting consumer courts:
1. There is a communication gap and the consumer courts (and the
consumers) are not sufficiently aware about the decisions given by other
consumer courts and by themselves at an earlier time. This has resulted
in mutually contradictory decisions and decisions which violate
decisions of higher courts.
2. Judgments of higher courts which are binding on lower courts are not being strictly followed and this is creating judicial confusion.
3. Judgments of higher courts which are not relevant are being followed as binding precedents and this is also increasing judicial confusion.
2. Judgments of higher courts which are binding on lower courts are not being strictly followed and this is creating judicial confusion.
3. Judgments of higher courts which are not relevant are being followed as binding precedents and this is also increasing judicial confusion.
A final word on RIA and CPA. Now, an NGO of Hyderabad by the
name Gareeb Guide International has filed a PIL before the Supreme Court
to resolve the problem of conflicting decisions of the National
Consumer Commission on whether an applicant under the RIA can take
recourse to the CPA if he does not get the information sought.