Compiled List - Successful Consumer Complaints in RTI Cases

[skmishra1970]

Dear Kothari Ji, Consumer Complaint format may be differ from state to state. It will be better to visit website of Maharashtra State Consumer Commission and download required format.

[drprasan]

Sponsorer

Can the CIC (Central Information Commission) be brought under the service ambit of COPR Act, for failing to implement penalty to CPIO despite delay in information and mala-fide denial. Service breach by CIC to act as per provisions of RTI Act 2005?

Can it be argued that Second appeal/complaint is just an extension of the activity beginning with RTI application by paying Rs.10 ? and CIC is duty bound as per RTI Act 2005 to provide the service for any RTI application i.e a failed RTI application process leading to appeal/complaint?

[smbhappy]

No. A RTI complaint or Appeal is a remedy for setting right a deficiency in providing you the information under the RTI Act 2005. By filing Appeal Complaint under Section 19 or 18, one is already availing that remedy.

The complaint under CPA is an additional remedy (See Section 3 of CPA). This is an additional remedy and not in arrogance to any other law in force for the time being.

So, Appeal/Complaint under RTI Act are not the extension of RTI Application rather they are remedies.
Appellate Authorities under RTI Act cannot be proceeded against under CPA. RTI Act Bars that orders of the RTI Commissioners cannot be challabed as "No court shall entertain any suit, application or other proceeding in respect of any order made under this Act and no such order shall be called in question otherwise than by way of an appeal under this Act."

It is different matter that DCDRF are not Courts.

[smbhappy]

Consumer forum tells PFC to compensate RTI applicant
Rajni Shaleen Chopra,
Posted: Apr 12, 2012 at 0104 hrs IST
[IMG]file:///C:\Users\SUREND~1\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image001.gif[/IMG]
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 Kalra’s wife by selling the land of which the corporation was not the owner.

PFC highlighted that the property sold to Kalra’s 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 Kalra’s 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.

[karira]

If anyone has a copy of the DCDRF decision regarding PFC, please upload here in this thread itself.