Appellant: SEBI had not conducted any enquiry on his complaint; In case an enquiry was done, he should be provided details thereof - SEBI: Appellant had already moved before the Gujarat Consumer Forum, who ordered compensation of Rs. 2500/- to appellant

Appellant sought action taken on his complaint - Appellant: SEBI had not conducted any enquiry on his complaint; In case the SEBI conducted the enquiry he should be provided details thereof - SEBI: Appellant had already moved before the Gujarat Consumer Forum, who ordered compensation of Rs. 2500/- to be paid by the Depository Participant which the appellant refused to accept - CIC advised the appellant to file a fresh complaint before SEBI

Date of Decision : 09th February, 2016.

ORDER

1. The appellant, Shri Nayan Bhagwat Prasad Rawal, submitted RTI application dated 27.01.2015 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Securities & Exchange Board of India (SEBI), Mumbai seeking action taken on his complaint dated 20.10.2014 asking whether a complainant could move to National Commission for resolving the grievances etc. through three points.

2. The CPIO vide letter dated 24.02.2015 informed the appellant that his complaints were entered on the SEBI’s complaint redressal system called SCORE and action taken on his complaints was also available there. He was further informed that his complaints No. SEBIP/WB13/0000192/2 & SEBIP/WB13/0000192/3 were closed as these were duplicate complaints. He intimated that the information sought on point 2 did not fall within the ambit of ‘information’ as defined u/s 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 16.03.2015 before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA had not adjudicated on appellant’s appeal.

3. Thereafter, dissatisfied with the decision of the respondents, the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission on 18.05.2015 stating that the CPIO had provided unsatisfactory reply and FAA had not decided his first appeal.

4. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant stated that the SEBI had not conducted any enquiry on his complaint. In case the SEBI conducted the enquiry he should be provided details thereof. The respondents stated that the appellant had already moved before the Gujarat Consumer Forum, who ordered compensation of Rs. 2500/- to be paid by the Depository Participant i.e. Ahmedabad Stock Exchange Ltd. The Ahmedabad Stock Exchange were ready to make payment, but the appellant refused to accept the same. The SEBI examined the complaint and based on the reply of the Depository Participants, they closed the matter. They also confirmed that appellant’s first appeal was not received by them. The appellant further stated that the payment was transferred in his father’s pension account by the Ahmedabad Stock Exchange. The respondents stated that the amount was transferred in the account mentioned by the applicant in his application form. The appellant may like to take up his grievance if any, with SEBI giving a copy of the application made to Ahmedabad Stock Exchange.

5. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the appellant is advised to file a fresh complaint before SEBI by providing with complete documents. The CPIO, SEBI will look into the matter and provide the outcome to the appellant within two weeks of receipt copy of complaint from the appellant.

(Manjula Prasher)

Information Commissioner

Citation: Shri Nayan Bhagwat Prasad Rawal v. Securities & Exchange Board of India in Case No. CIC/MP/A/2015/001304