Information regarding delivery of some registered/speed post articles by a Post Office was sought claiming that about 22 articles were returned to the sender though the recipient was available at his address - CIC: Compensation of Rs. 1000/- granted
5 Mar, 2016Information sought:-
The applicant through 15 queries had sought information related to delivery of registered/speed post articles between 01/01/2009 to 31/08/2013 by the Branch Post Office, Banigawan. He wants to know total number of such articles received and dispatched, details of VPs done by this post office, details of articles returned, whether any register is maintained, time limit of articles, records kept at link offices, mode by which articles are sent and received between offices, officer responsible other related information.
Grounds for the Second Appeal: The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during the Hearing held on 18/02/2015: The following were present
Appellant: Mr. R. S. Yadav through VC (M: 08410713949)
Respondent: Mr. P K Garg CPIO through VC (M: 09410693536)
The appellant stated that about 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. registered/speed post articles addressed to him/his wife Smt. Sarla Yadav have been returned to the sender by Banigawan BO though he was very much available at his address. He further stated that a very important speed post no EU 879558245IN addressed to him was returned to the sender though the respondent had earlier informed that the article has been redirected to him. The CPIO stated that he has recently taken charge and if the appellant sends him a mail/meets him personally he will take appropriate steps to resolve his grievance. The appellant pleaded that the matter should not be concluded but an adjournment should be granted to enable the respondent to look into his complaint and provide him the information.
Interim Decision notice dated 18/02/2015:
As requested by the appellant it is decided to grant adjournment to enable the CPIO to look into the matter. The hearing is adjourned for 24/03/2015 at 03.00 PM.
Relevant Facts emerging during the Hearing held on 24/03/2015:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. R. S. Yadav through VC (M: 08410713949)
Respondent: Mr. J R Meena CPIO through VC (M: 094501827023)
The appellant stated that Shri Anil Kumar had informed that the speed post had been redirected to him but subsequently the postal authorities have stated that the letter was sent back to the sender and he has handed over all the relevant documents to Shri Garg on 16/03/2015. The CPIO was unable to give any satisfactory response. The appellant pleaded that some compensation should be awarded for the detriment caused to him due to return of an important mail and non supply of proper information.
Decision Notice:
From the foregoing it is apparent that the appellant has not received proper information. 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 appeal is disposed of accordingly.
BASANT SETH
Information Commissioner
Citation: Mr. R. S. Yadav v. Department of Posts in File No. CIC/BS/A/2014/000566/7265