Appellant claimed that no reply was received and he lost interest for 16 months on his EPS amount of Rs. 6630/- due to non provision of information - CIC: compensate the appellant u/s 19(8)(b) by an amount of Rs.700/- for the detriment caused
12 Jan, 2014Appellant claimed that no reply was received while PIO stated that a reply was sent to the appellant and he would provide the information afresh - PIO: EPS claim has been paid to the ICICI bank but through oversight the account number was incorrectly mentioned – Appellant: due to non provision of information, he has lost interest for 16 months on his EPS amount of Rs.6630/- - CIC: compensate the appellant u/s 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; 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 by an amount of Rs.700/- for the detriment caused to him
Information sought:
1- Please provide the status of Form 10 C (No. 3134575) of Mr. Alokananda Paul bearing PF A/c No.41439/02, Gr-27 submitted on 09/069/2010.
2- Due to the wrong mention of beneficiary bank A/c no. by EPFO, Salt Lake Kolkata the claim regarding the Form 10C of PF A/c no. 41139/02, Gr-27, not settled, till date though he has claimed it several times since 2005, reply in (Yes/No).
3- Please let me know the current process of claim settlement for the PF A/c no. 41439/02, Gr-27 of Form 10C.
4- Please let me know the Grievance Redressal Mechanism existence in EPFO, Salt Lake, Kolkata.
5- Please let me know since January 2005 the total unsettled no. of claims and the related form no. due to wrong mention of bank A/c no. on the part of EPFO, Salt Lake, Kolkata.
6- Please let me know since January 2005 the total unsettled amount of the EPF A/c holders on wrong mention of bank A/c no. on the part of EPFO, Salt Lake, Kolkata.
Grounds for the Second Appeal: The CPIO has not given the information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing: The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Aniruddha Bakshi through VC
Respondent: Mr. Sunil Kumar Deo CPIO through VC
The appellant stated that he has not received any information in response to his RTI application dated 28/08/2012. The CPIO stated that that a reply was sent to the appellant vide letter dated 17/01/2013, however, he will provide the information afresh. The appellant pointed out that the said reply has not been received and he has been running from pillar to post for settlement of EPS claim of Mr. A Paul, whom he is representing, but the PF authorities have not bothered to resolve the matter. The CPIO stated that the appellant’s EPS claim has been paid to the ICICI bank but through oversight the account number was incorrectly mentioned and inspite of repeatedly writing to the bank they have neither refunded the amount nor credited the proceeds to the appellant’s account and he will claim interest from the bank. The appellant argued that detriment has been suffered by Mr. A Paul due to non provision of information as he has lost interest for 16 months on his EPS amount of Rs.6630/-.
Decision notice:
From the foregoing it is apparent that detriment has been caused to Mr. A Paul due to non provision of information and he deserves to be compensated. Therefore, in exercise of the powers vested in the CIC under 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; 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.700/- for the detriment caused to him. The CPIO should ensure that the amount is paid to Mr. A Paul by means of demand draft/pay order within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. The CPIO is further directed to provide the information requested by the appellant in his RTI application dated 28/08/2012, free of cost, within 7 days from the date of receipt of this order. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
BASANT SETH
Information Commissioner
Citation: Mr. Aniruddha Bakshi v. EPFO in File No. CIC/BS/A/2012/002010/4139