Central Information Commission
Room No. 305, 2nd Floor, 'B' Wing, August Kranti Bhavan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi110066
Web: www.cic.gov.in Tel No: 26167931
Case No. CIC/SS/A/2011/000923
Name of Appellant : Shri Anuj Kumar
Name of Respondent : National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission
Date of Hearing : 13.10.2011
ORDER
Shri Anuj Kumar, the appellant has filed this appeal dated 16.3.2011 before the
Commission against the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC),
New Delhi for providing false information to his RTI-request dated 16.1.2011. The matter
came up for hearing on 13.10.2011. The appellant was absent, whereas the respondents
were represented by Shri S. Hanumantha Rao, CPIO and Shri Iqbal Ahmed, APIO.
2. The appellant filed RTI-request dated 16.1.2011 seeking information on three
queries – ” (1) Please give ;me information on how many cases of appeal, revision and review
have come up involving private builders/ private sector companies into building and real estate in
each of the State Commissions and NCDRC. How many cases have been decided in favour of
consumers and how many in favour of builders/companies in private sector by NCDRC and each
State Commission; (2) How many cases have been decided within the time line provided by the
Consumer Protection Act by each State Commissions and NCDRC. What is the actual minimum,
average and maximum time taken to decide these cases in each State Commissions and
NCDRC. How many cases are pending since more than one year; and (3) Please provide
information on actions taken by NCDRC for improving the operational efficiency of NCDRC and
removing biases, favouritism or influences while deciding a case.” The CPIO vide letter No. A-
2001/RTI-155/NCDRC/2010 dated 31.1.2011 informed to the appellant on Point No. 1 and
2 that the data, as desired by him, were not maintained in the NCDRC. However, copies of
the consolidated statements containing cases filed/ disposed since inception, in all State
2 Case No. CIC/SS/A/2011/000923
Commissions and NCDRC were enclosed. On Point No. 3 the CPIO informed that each
case i.e. complaint/ appeal/ revision petition filed in the NCDRC was decided on the basis
of facts and circumstances of each particular case and as per provisions of the Consumer
Protection Act, 1986.
3. Aggrieved by reply from CPIO, the appellant preferred first-appeal on 5.2.2011
before FAA. The FAA vide order No. A-2001/RTI-37/NCDRC/2011 dated 9.3.2011 upheld
the reply of CPIO.
4. Having heard the respondent and perused the relevant documents on record, the
Commission is of the considered view that requisite information available on record and
permissible under the RTI Act has been provided to the appellant by respondent. No
interference is called for on the part of the Commission.
The matter is accordingly disposed of at Commission’s end.
(Sushma Singh)
Information Commissioner
18.10.2011
Authenticated true copy:
(K.K. Sharma)
OSD & Deputy Registrar
Address of the parties:
Shri Anuj Kumar,
402, D Wing, Vista-II, The Woods,
Aundh Chinchwad Road, Wakad,
Pune-411057.
The CPIO,
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
7th Floor, ‘B’ Wing, Janpath Bhawan, Janpath,
New Delhi-110001.
The First Appellate Authority,
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
7th Floor, ‘B’ Wing, Janpath Bhawan, Janpath,
New Delhi-110001.
3 Case No. CIC/SS/A/2011/000923