CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000302/7197
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000302
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Surender Kumar
F/M - 194/56,
Bhorgarh Fire Station,
New Delhi - 110040.
Respondent 1 : Mr. R. K. Sanini
Public Information Officer &
Administrative Officer
Delhi Fire Service
O/o the Directorate of Delhi
Fire Service, GNCTD
Connaught Place, New Delhi - 110001.
Respondent 2 : Mr. Naresh Pal
Head of the Office
Delhi Fire Service, GNCTD
Laxami Nagar Fire Station,
Laxami Nagar Fire Station,
Delhi - 110092.
RTI application filed on : 17/11/2009
PIO replied : 01/02/2010 & 06/01/2010
First appeal filed on : 19/12/2010
First Appellate Authority order : Not ordered
Second Appeal filed on : 01/02/2010
Second Appeal received on : 03/02/2010
Hearing Notice sent on : 18/02/2010
Hearing held on : 18/03/2010
Information Sought:
1) Certified copy of the application dated 24/10/2005 addressed to Teliwara Fire Station.
2) Details of time which is taken by the department to grant the request for the treatment of one’s child.
3) Certified copy of the file which was related to the treatment of Appellant’s daughters and addressed to
the DDO.
4) Request to compensate the amount which was incurred by the Appellant for his daughter’s treatment.
Reply of the PIO:
(After the First Appeal was filed)
(Information provided by the PIO, CP Branch on 01/02/2010)
Received from STO(TW)
a) The Application of FM 194/56 Surender Kumar regarding permission for treatment of his daughter was
forwarded to DO (HQ) on 24/10/2005 vide dispatch no. 192 & peon book entry No. 41. The dak was
delivered by FM 194/56 Surender Kumar. (Copy of the dispatch register was given).
b) Not related to PIO.
c) The application with medical bills was forwarded to DDO (Laxmi Nagar) on 19/04/2006 as per the
dispatch no. 16 and peon book entry no. 60. The Dak was delivered by FM 194/56 Surender Kumar.
(Copy of the dispatch register was given).
d) Not related to this PIO.
Received from Head of Office (Laxami Nagar Fire Station)
a) There was no records available in Laxami Nagar Division as the Appellant, FM 194/56 had been
transferred from LN Division.
b) This information could also be obtained from the respective department.
c) Not related to LN Division.
d) Not related to LN Division.
(Information provided by the PIO, HQ on 06/02/2010)
Received from LN Fire Station
a) The medical bill was required by the office of DDO(LN) on 19/04/2009 but no action had been taken by
the DA/DDO/HOO (LN) on that time. Now the medical bill was traced out from the record. The
FM194/56, Mr. Surender Kumar had been transferred from the division. The medical bill was submitted
for necessary action.
b) This information could also be obtained from the respective department
c) Not related to LN Division.
d) Not related to LN Division.
Ground of First Appeal:
Non-receipt of information from the PIO within the stipulated time.
First Appellate Authority ordered:
Not ordered.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Non-compliance of the order of the FAA by the PIO.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Mr. Surender Kumar;
Respondent : Mr. R. K. Sanini, Public Information Officer & Administrative Officer (HQ);
Mr. Naresh Pal, Head of the Office (Laxmi Nagar Fire Station);
The Appellant had applied for reimbursement of medical expense incurred for his daughter in 2006.
This reimbursement was not made to him since it appears that the bill was misplaced. Even when the Appellant
filed the RTI Application the department was unable to inform him where the bill was and it appears that after
spending a lot of time and effort the department has now located the bill and made a cheque of Rs.5660/- which
is yet to be delivered to the appellant. There has been a delay in providing the information and the
reimbursement. For the trouble of unnecessarily filing second appeal and waiting for the reimbursement of his
daughters medical expenses the Commission feels the Appellant should be compensated for the loss and
detriment suffered by him.
In view of this the Commission directs the PIO to ensure that a compensation of Rs.2000/- is given to the
Appellant by the Department for the loss and detriment suffered by him for unnecessarily filing a second appeal
and the delay in providing the reimbursement.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to ensure that the compensation of Rs.2000/- is given to the Appellant
before 20 April 2010.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
18 March 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(GJ)