Appellant was aggrieved regarding alleged excess billing of GPRS charges by M/s. Airtel - a report obtained from the service provider indicated that there are no incorrect deductions - PIO: an arbitrator has been appointed - CIC: matter is closed
Information sought:- The appellant has sought the following information:-
Question 1:- Provide detailed action taken reports on following complaints filed by me in PG Portal? The Reports shall include reminders, clarifications, details of Documentary evidence uploaded by complaint and Grievance officer name, office address with contact number and fax. (a) DOTEL/E/2012/24554 dated 20 Nov 2012. (b) DOTEL/E/2012/25688 dated 30 Nov 2012. (c) DOTEL/E/2012/26026 dated 04 Dec 2012. (d) DOTEL/E/2012/26823 dated 13 Dec 2012. (e) DOTEL/E/2012/26877 dated 14 Dec 2012. (f) DOTEL/E/2013/00058 dated 01 Jan 2013. (g) DOTEL/E/2013/01513 dated 20 Jan 2013. (h) DOTEL/E/2013/01518 dated 20 Jan 2013. (i) DOTEL/E/2013/01542 dated 20 Jan 2013. (j) DOTEL/E/2013/01634 dated 21 Jan 2013. (k) DOTEL/E/2013/01857 dated 23 Jan 2013. (l) DOTEL/E/2013/03237 dated 09 Feb 2013. (m) DOTEL/E/2013/03452 dated 12 Feb 2013. (n) DOTEL/E/2013/06332 dated 14 Mar 2013. (o) DOTEL/E/2013/07092 dated 22 The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. Mar 2013. (p) DOTEL/E/2013/07530 dated 27 Mar 2013.
Question 4:- Provide information on, Whether DOT grievance officer is ensured that the reply submitted by service provider against complaint referred at Question 1(a) to 1(p) are correct and in-line with query sought by complainant? If not so, why the complaint was closed by Grievance officer?
Question 5:- Provide information on, web page reference of Property details displayed against Grievance officer, who responsible for answering complaint referred at question 1(a) to 1(p).
Question 6:- I have repeatedly asked for referring my complaints to DOT licencing cell through complaints referred at question 1(a) to 1(p) for taking action against service provider for failure to settle billing related complaints within stipulated time frame. However, DOT failed to do so! The reason for not referring my complaints to DOT, licencing cell be provided?
Question 7:- I have submitted my detailed complaint to “The Secretary” vide my letter dated 11 Mar 2013. The action taken report against Para 5(a) to 5 (g) of my letter be provided? The report shall contain dates and events of action taken in chronological order.
Question 8:- I have submitted my detailed explanation to “The Secretary” vide my letter dated 30 Apr 2013 in response to DOT letter reference 13-01/2013/PG/21 dated 18 Apr 2013 pertaining to reply only on query at Para 5(g) of my letter dated 11 Mar 2013.
The action taken report against Para 5(a) to 5(d) of my letter dated 30 Arp 2013 be provided? The report shall contain dates and events of action taken in chronological order.
Question 9:- I have submitted my billing related mobile complaint to email@example.com from firstname.lastname@example.org on 30 Nov 2012 with documentary and audio evidence on AIRTEL for period pertaining to 01 Jan 2011 to 30 Aug 2012 with reference to AIRTEL complaint acknowledgement ref. PRO92400304 dated 24 Sep 2012. My email also contained copy of mobile bill for the month Aug 2012, with error deductions as ready reckoner to DOT for verification. The service provider supposed to keep minimum 6 months data of mobile usage as per telecom guidelines. Therefore, the data pertaining to Jun 12 to Aug 12 is very well verifiable by DOT and period Mar 12 to Aug 12 by service provider from my starting point of intimation to all concerned. In this ground, I have submitted queries to PG portal vide my complaints referred at question 1(a) to 1(p) for the Aug 2012. However, answer on actual disputed period as mentioned above is not received from DOT, PG Portal and service provider. (a) Why DOT failed to obtain information from service provider on actual disputed period as reported in my complaints with DOT? (b) Can DOT provide information on disputed period, now? If not so, why?
Question 10:- Various complaints are received at PG Portal related to telecom. Certain complaints are needed to be referred to various DOT internal departments/offices for action against service provider. How many (Nos) such cases had been forwarded to DOT internal departments in the calendar year 2012 and 2013? If no cases are referred, then why with reason?
Question 11:- Are there any written instructions/orders to PG portal grievance officer to refer cases only to Service Provider? If so, provide the copy of the same.
Question 12:- Whose responsibility to ensure that the content (Action taken report) posted in PG portal during complaint closure by DOT?
Question 13:- Is it the responsibility of DOT, Grievance office to ensure that the complaint closure content (Action taken report) is in line with complainant grievance?
Question 14:- Is it the duty of grievance officer is to just post the information provided my service provider in OG Portal without ensuring the content are intact with grievances raised?
Question 15:- Is it the responsibility of grievances officer to ensure the grievances is fully resolved to the satisfaction of complainant or not?
Question 16:- Provide confirmation that “Answers to above question 6 to 15 are given only direct and correct answers, without referring to any other webpage reference”?
Grounds for the Second Appeal: The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing: The following were present
Respondent: Mr. S S Singh, FAA, Mr. R K Singh CPIO, Mr. R S Rana & Mr. Mohan Lal Singh The appellant was given an opportunity to participate in the hearing, however, he is absent. The CPIO stated that the appellant’s RTI application dated 19/05/2013 was replied point wise vide letter dated 12/06/2013 and in response to his 1st appeal dated 17/06/2013 the FAA has passed a detailed order dated 02/09/2013 and has also offered an opportunity to the appellant to inspect the records and take whatever information/documents he needs. He further stated that it is apparent from the appellant’s 2nd appeal that he is questioning the public authority about the nature & quality of action taken on his complaints and making allegations of furnishing false/ misleading information without providing any basis/proof. It is the CPIO’s say that it can be seen from the appellant’s 2nd appeal to the Commission that he is aggrieved regarding alleged excess billing of GPRS charges during the period 01/01/2011 to 31/08/2012 by M/s. Airtel but a report obtained from the service provider indicates that there are no incorrect deductions towards GPRS usage during the period June 2012 to December 2012. He informed that as requested by the appellant an arbitrator has been appointed on 07/01/2014 to look into the matter and the appellant has produced documents before him for the first time in the 2nd week of September 2014. The CPIO pointed out that another appeal of the petitioner decided the Commission on 15/09/2014 [file No. CIC/SM/A/2013/901299] was on the same issue and since his grievance is now before the arbitrator he can contest his case before him.
The CPIO, under the RTI Act, is required to furnish the information/documents as available on record; however, eliciting answers to queries, redressal of grievance, reasons for non compliance of rules/contesting the actions of the respondent public authority are outside the purview of the Act. The appellant in his 2nd appeal has not specified what information/documents he needs. As regards his billing dispute the matter is before the arbitrator and will be taken to its logical conclusion. The appellant has not availed the opportunity to appear before the Commission to canvass his case/contest the CPIO’s submissions. The matter is closed.
Citation: Mr. Anand Nallan v. Department of Telecommunications in File No. CIC/BS/A/2013/902302/6108