CAN INFORMATION BE DENIED UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

Consumer protection act was enacted in 1986, with an initial focus  on goods as defined under Sale of Goods Act.  Thereafter through amendment in 1993, a number of services were also brought under the purview of this act and one out of them was defined under  section 2{o} of the consumer protection act as: “……the purveying of news or other information but does not include the services free of charge or under a contract of personal service”

As per the above provision, purveying information was a service under the above Act and in case of default or deficiency in providing such services; it could lead to a case before the consumer court.

 Defining ‘information’

The word ‘Information’ has taken a very wide meaning and scope after the Right to Information Act 2005 came into force. It has changed the total scenario in the country and legal debates and discussions are never ending on issue of its scope. The question now arises as to whether consumers can invoke the provisions of Consumer Protection Act (CPA) for deficiency in services against the erring authority when special law i.e. RTI Act is available to the consumer for relief.

 

What is RTI?

Beyond any reasonable doubt RTI Act  is a specific law as against the  general law for consumers i.e, Consumer Protection Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of General Manager Telecom V M Krishna &other 2009 CTJ 1062 [SC] held ‘When there is a special remedy available provided in section 7-B of the Indian telegraph act regarding disputes in respect of telephone bills then remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is by implication barred. As the special law overrides the general law’

 

We may also refer to the earlier orders of apex court in this context. In 1995 also  Supreme Court held while deciding the case of Chairman Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation v Consumer Protection Council 1995 CTJ193 SC [CP] that Motor Vehicle Act is a special act and it overrides the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Almost a similar situation is with RTI Act also. Consumer Protection Act is an earlier act and section 3 of the act provides - that it is an additional remedy available to consumers and not in derogation of other law for the time being in force which means, unless specifically barred by some special law, consumers can exercise its jurisdiction on the issues which can otherwise be considered under its scope. 

Incidentally RTI Act has gained so much of popularity that people have almost forgotten that it is otherwise also their fundamental right to know what they ought to know or need  to know. More so in the context of ‘information’, it is not only because of its scope of additional remedy but also for the reason the word ‘purveying information’ is specifically defined under sec 2[o] of the act as referred above. Hence to my view Consumer protection act does not come in derogation to RTI Act or any other law. If rti Act has been specifically meant for providing information ,that does not change the provisions of the CP act which is also passed by the same parliament. The only reason for such doubt is that  RTI Act has gained so much of popularity that people have almost forgotten that CP Act also gives same remedy to them  

RTI Act visa vis Consumer Protection Act

Now the real question here is to decide whether it will be in derogation to the prevailing law if  Consumer Protection Act is  invoked ignoring RTI Act or can there be any contradictions in relief if both the remedies are open to the public at large.

Under RTI Act Central Information Commission or State Information Commission as the case may be, can impose penalty on the erring officer under sec 20[1] of the act. Further under sec 20[2], it may also direct for disciplinary proceedings. Sec 19[8] provides for compensation to the person for loss suffered due to delay in giving information.

 

Under Consumer Protection Act, one is paid compensation for the loss.  If a person invokes both the remedies and is paid penalty or compensation from Central Information Commission and compensation from consumer forum for deficiency the beneficiary,it will not be proper because it is well settled law that one canot be compensated twice for a loss and cannot be enriched this way ,hence can   choose only one remedy.  Since central information commission can act with more force and get the information much quickly people may prefer that especially if they are really in need. But no one is barred to come to consumer court as per the above discussion because neither it goes in derogation to RTI Act nor is specifically barred.

 

Situation is yet not ripe to say anything on the implication as yet no such case has come up to the Apex court but the orders coming from Central Information Commission show, commission’s is limited to the right to information only and commission do not deal with the subject for which information is sought or any other question of his entitlement under the subject No further details or discussion on the law  point of the subject is desired by the commission as per the case of  S L Saluja V State Bank Of India ,Cic,2008

 

 

DR PREM LATA

MEMBER ,CONSUMER FORUM DELHI 

 

Previous

Next