IMPORTANT POINT
In cases of false and frivolous complaints, appropriate and albeit necessary to give stern advice of caution to the complainant through a token monetary deterrent, to desist from misusing the statutory processes provided for a consumer which is for better protection of his interests under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Dinesh Singh, Member—The review petitioner - complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the competent authority (RTI) Employment Exchange – opposite party no. 1 and the appellate authority (RTI) Employment Exchange – opposite party no. 2.

2. On his complaint being dismissed by the District Forum, he filed an appeal before the State Commission against the competent authority (RTI) Employment Exchange – respondent no. 1, the appellate authority (RTI) Employment Exchange – respondent no. 2 and the Director Department Employment Exchange – respondent no. 3 (i.e. he added the departmental Director as a respondent in the appeal).

3. The original case of the complainant was that he applied for information on unemployment allowance from concerned authority / official of Employment Exchange vide application dated 26.12.2012 under the RTI Act, 2005. He also applied for the required information from higher authorities of Employment Exchange vide application dated 04.02.2013. No action was taken by the opposite parties. He spent Rs. 865/- besides expenditure on purchase of postal orders. Not supplying the requisite information was deficiency in service.

4. The contention of the opposite parties was that the complainant was not a ‘consumer’ under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as the Employment Exchange provided free services to the complainant. The complainant did not apply to any of the opposite parties for seeking information under the RTI Act. No appeal under the RTI Act was made to Joint Director Department of Employment Exchange who was the appellate authority (under the RTI Act). The minimum qualification for unemployment allowance was 10+2 whereas the complainant was having qualification of only matric. There was no deficiency in service of any kind (under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986).

5. The District Forum heard both sides, appraised the evidence and through a reasoned Order dated 05.06.2013 dismissed the complaint, inter alia holding that:

…..Thus there is no evidence that the Ops ever received applications (Annexure C-1) & (Annexure C-3) from the complainant under the provisions of RTI Act. In the absence of any such application, the matter regarding sending of information could not be processed and settled by Ops. After going through the aforesaid discussion, we find that no deficiency in service can be attributed to the opposite parties.

(para 7 of the Order)

6. The complainant appealed in the State Commission. The State Commission heard both sides, appraised the evidence and through a reasoned Order dated 05.07.2013 dismissed the appeal, inter alia holding that:

…..In the present case, the complainant has miserably failed to place on the record any piece of evidence to prove that he moved any application to the opposite parties under the RTI Act and in the absence thereof, the District Consumer Forum was left with no other option but to dismiss the complaint. The order passed by the District Consumer Forum is well reasoned, objective, fair, just and legal, it needs absolutely no interference in this appeal.

(para 8 of the Order)

7. Revision was filed by the complainant under Section 21(b) of the Act 1986 against the said Order dated 05.07.2013 of the State Commission, inter alia stating that:

That I have required information for the Unemployment Allowance on the behalf of RTI Act 2005 on 26.12.2012 to the concerned authority/official.

That I have required information from the Higher Authorities of the Employment Exchange on the behalf of RTI Act 2005 on 04.02.2013, 08.4.2013 and 13.6.2013 (Speed Post No. EH338880599IN) but no action has been done.

That the complaints request to the Hon’ble Court ordered to the Employment Exchange Panchkula should pay the amount with interest @ 18% p.m. from 26.12.2012.

That the information applied by the RTI Act 2005 supplied by the Higher Authority i.e. Director Department Employment Exchange Chandigarh on 27.6.2013 but the respondent