Information regarding action taken on request for disconnection of E-Video & return of security deposit was provided after receiving a hearing notice from CIC - Appellant made a claim for harassment by department - CIC: compensation of Rs.1000/- awarded17 Aug, 2014
A.The appellant has sought the following information/documents:-
1. After how many days the Security Deposit is returned back to the landline user. Reason for not returning the security in the maintained time limit. Whether any action has been taken against the employee regarding the same. If not provide the reasons.
2. Provide the details about the action taken against the application dated 18/03/2010 given for the disconnection of E-Video 05963210854 and also provide the details about the action taken against the application dated 24/04/2010 regarding the return of security deposit. How much time would be taken for the disposal of both applications?
3. Whether the department informs about the change in the tariff plan of E-video. If not, what are the reasons? Who is responsible for sending wrong bills of E-Video?
4. Whether there is any compulsion for the user for paying wrong bill.
5. How much time is taken for repairing of telephone connection once the complaint is made? Who is responsible for not taking action on repeated complaints? Whether any action have been taken on the officer responsible, if yes, provide the details, if no, provide the reasons. Whether it can be considered as departmental lapse.
B.The appellant stated that it is only after receipt of the Commission’s notice for this hearing that the information has been provided. The CPIO’s representative explained that the appellant had addressed his RTI application to the Account Officer BSNL Bageshwar who did not forward the same to the CPIO and hence, they were unaware about the matter. The appellant pointed out that the Commission had sent a letter dated 16/04/2012 to the FAA and also to the respondent but they did not bother to provide any reply. The CPIO’s representative stated that the Commission’s letter was addressed to Bageshwar which is a small exchange while the CPIO/FAA sit at Almora office and the said letter was never brought to their attention by the JE who heads the exchange. The appellant stated that he has been running from pillar to post and has been harassed by the department and hence some compensation should be awarded to him.
The information has been provided to the appellant. From the foregoing it is apparent that the appellant did not receive the information till a notice for this hearing was issued. For the inconvenience caused to him, he deserves to be compensated. Therefore, in exercise of the powers vested in the CIC in Section 19(8)(b) In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered; of the RTI Act we direct the department to compensate him by an amount of Rs.1000/- for the inconvenience and detriment caused to him. Accordingly, the CPIO should ensure that this amount is remitted to the appellant by demand draft/pay order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The department may consider recovering the above amount from the concerned JE who has not bothered to forward the appellant’s RTI application/the Commission’s letter dated 16/4/2012 to the CPIO. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Citation: Mr. Keshav Bhatt v. BSNL in File No. CIC/BS/A/2013/001249/5497