Information about a phone which was out of order for long durations was sought - CIC: provide copy of guidelines for allowing rebate for faulty telephone & also allow rebate for a specific period - Compensation of Rs.1000/- granted for detriment caused
The appellant sought following information:
1. Data maintained by MTNL helpline No.198 in r/o appellant’s phone No.22385913 between 01-01-2013 to 31-12-2013
(A) complaint no’s registered between above mentioned period.
(B) date of complaint
(C) date of closing of complaint/Action taken Duration in which phone was out of order.
2. No. of outgoing calls made and internet data consumed month-wise between 01-01-2013 and 31-12-2013 in r/o above phone.
3. Technical reasons for remaining the phone out of order for long durations between above said period.
4. Rule and procedure for refund of amount to the consumer for non-functional period.
5. Time taken by MTNL to refund the amount for non-functional period.
6. Status of his application dt. 25/10/2013 for refund of amount charged by MTNL for nonfunctional period.
Grounds for the Second Appeal: The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing: The following were present
Appellant: Mr. V. K. Gupta
Respondent: Mr Rajendra Prasad CPIO’s representative, Mr Jai Bhagwan, Mr. A K Mukhi & Mr. B B Harit. The appellant stated that the respondent’s reply was delayed by 12 days and incomplete/erroneous information has been supplied. The CPIO’s representative stated that he has brought the relevant records and the appellant can scrutinize the same. The appellant stated that the respondent have allowed rebate for September 2013 when both his landline and internet connection was working more or less satisfactorily whereas there was no service from 26/04/2013 to 04/06/2013 but no rebate has been allowed. He alleged that no proper records are maintained by the respondent. He requested that the respondent should allow rebate for the period 26/04/2013 to 04/06/2013 and also provide copy of the guidelines for allowing rebate. The CPIO’s representative agreed. As regards delay the respondent explained that the RTI application was received on 06/03/2013 and was replied on 09/04/2013. The appellant produced the postal envelop indicating that the letter dated 09/04/2013 was actually mailed on 17/04/2013. He pleaded for compensation for the delay.
As agreed by the CPIO’s representative he should provide copy of guidelines for allowing rebate for faulty telephone and also allow rebate for the period 26/04/2013 to 04/06/2013. The appellant has not received the information timely. For the detriment caused 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; 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 appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Citation: Mr. V. K. Gupta v. MTNL in File No. CIC/BS/A/2014/001929/8154