Appellant: opportunity to use the money missed due to delayed payment on maturity of term deposit - Respondent: the appellant’s RTI application was erroneously treated as a complaint & he was advised accordingly - CIC compensation of Rs.750/- granted
1- Letter no. WL-I/Public Complaint/LNN/11-12 dated 03/12/2011.2- Letter no. WL-I/ Public Complaint/LNN/11-12 dated 09/12/2011.
With reference to above two letters the appellant thorough his RTI application having 05 querieshad sought following information:
- Provide copies of all letters dated 05/01/2010 as mentioned in the above letter dated03/12/2011 mentioned at Sr. (1).
- Copies of all letters written by departmental IO within 06 months of 25/10/2011 related toabove letter dated 09/12/2011 mentioned at Sr. (2).
- Provide copies of letter on the basis of which signature of agent mentioned on theapplication of account no. 340986 with reference to letter mentioned above at Sr. (2).
- Name, designation and details of the officer whose signature is mentioned on it.
- Provide total number of matters related to corruption as on date at Mahim Head Post Office and provide the list of agents during the year 2009.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Laxmi Narayan Namdev through VC
Respondent: Ms. Shymla CPIO representative through VC
The CPIO’s representative stated that the appellant had invested in one year term depositon 06/01/2007 and had claimed payment on maturity on 06/01/2008 but by mistake the date of deposit was read as 06/11/2007 and the amount was not paid. She further stated that the appellant made a complaint and the matter was investigated and he has been paid the entireamount including the overdue interest. The appellant pointed out that due to the non-payment of his term deposit on maturity he lost the opportunity to use the money timely and his RTIapplication dated 25/11/2011 was returned unreplied on 03/12/2011 and hence, some compensation should be allowed. The CPIO’s representative explained that the appellant’s RTI application was erroneously treated as a complaint and he was advised accordingly. She further stated that the complaint was investigated and appropriate action was taken in the matter. The appellant alleged that there are agents operating in the post office who are doing the work of postal clerks and the matter needs investigation. The CPIO’s representative stated that if the appellant makes a complaint giving tangible evidence the matter can be investigated.
From the foregoing it is apparent that the appellant did not receive any information inresponse his RTI application dated 25/11/2011. 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.750/- for the inconvenience and detriment caused to him. The CPIO should ensure that this amount isremitted to the appellant by demand draft/banker’s cheque within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Citation: Mr. Laxmi Narayan Namdev v. Department of Posts in File No. CIC/BS/A/2013/000332/4642