welcome to Compensation | Institute of Secretariat Training & Management

S.No.	CIC CASE	DATE OF JUDGMENT	JUDGMENT
16	CIC/AD/A/2012/000603 (309.57 KB)	10 May, 2012	Shri Vinod Kumar Goyal vs Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission A Block, Vikas Bhawan I.P. Estate New Delhi Award of Compensation to the applicant - the Appellant stated that information supplied by the PIO is delayed and incorrect since it does not confirm the fact mentioned in the supporting documents. The public authority is accordingly directed to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- to the Appellant as compensation under section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act.
17	CIC/SM/C/2009/001297 (207.91 KB)	03 Apr, 2012	Shri Gopal Singh vs CPIO, Central Bank of India, Zonal Office, Pawapuri Vihar, NH 28, Bhagwanpur, Muzaffarpur Award of Compensation to the applicant for the detriment and inconveniences suffered by him - the circular of the public authority only mentioned that the application fee should be deposited only by way of cash against receipt or demand draft or bankers cheque - this circular, does not include IPO as one of the instruments for payment of application fee although the Central Government had already amended the Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules 2005 in the notification dated 17 May 2006.The Commission held that the Complainant has suffered a lot of detriment on account of the denial of the information certainly deserves to be compensated for this detriment and loss. CIC directed the bank to pay him a compensation of Rs.5000/-.
18	CIC/SG/A/2012/000211/18093 (51.84 KB)	27 Mar, 2012	M.K. Sachan Vs. PIO, SR. Manager, Punjab and Sind Bank, Zonal Office, Lalbagh, Lucknow, UP Section 19 (8)(b) – Compensation to be awarded to the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered The commission held that in numerous decisions it has been held that information relating to leave and the attendance registers cannot be considered to be exempt information since this is the information regarding the public activity. Taking into the consideration the Appellant’s contention that he was seeking information regarding people appearing before the commission as appellant’s in their private capacity, it appeared that the denial of information was with a purpose to hide this information. The Commission further under section 19(8)(b) awarded a compensation of Rs. 2000/- to the appellant for the harassment to filing the appeal and the delay in getting the information.
19	CIC/SG/A/2011/003539/17278 Adjunct (79.40 KB)	15 Mar, 2012	K.K. Swami Vs. PIO, Food Safety and Standards, Authority of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Pragati Vihar, Delhi section 19(8)(b) – Award of compensation of the applicant The Commission held that the appellant was pursuing this matter and hence sought information whether anything concrete had been done by the Food Safety and Standard Authority of India. It is unfortunate that the PIO has not provided simple information sought by the Appellant. If the Food Safety and Standard Authority of India has taken no steps about specifying the safe level trans fats percentages in Ghee and Edible Oil they should atleast admit this. The Appellant has been unnecessarily harassed in pursuing this matter. Harassment of a common man by public authorities is socially abhorring and legally impermissible. The Commission under section 19(8)(b) of the RTI act awarded a compensation of Rs. 2000/- to the appellant for the loss and detriment suffered by him in pursuing the appeal. The penalty proceeding however is dropped giving benefit of doubt to the respondents and accepting their plea that they have not been able to understand the queries properly.
20	CIC/SM/A/2010/000905 & 1303 (207.07 KB)	28 Mar, 2011	Shri R P Pushkar Delhi Vs. CPIO, Punjab National Bank The Appellant had sought a number of details regarding the promotion of clerks to the rank of JMG Scale 1. By and large, the CPIO had referred him to the website of the HRD division of the Bank where apparently the results had been displayed. During the hearing, however, the Appellant submitted that the information displayed on the website was not printable. CIC directed the CPIO to provide to the Appellant within 10 working days the desired information in hard copy form. The Appellant also submitted that he had to incur expenses and some detriment on account of the fact that he had to appeal before the CIC for obtaining the information which could have been provided to him in the first place by the CPIO himself. Therefore, in exercise of the powers vested in the CIC in section 19(8) (b) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the Bank to compensate him by an amount of Rs. 1000 (Rupees One thousand only) for the loss and detriment suffered by him.
21	CIC/DS/A/2010/001673 (89.04 KB)	28 Mar, 2011	Shri Ashok Kumar Saxena, Moradabad Vs. LIC of India, Allahabad The applicant preferred RTI application dated 22 October 2009 before the CPIO, LIC of India, Allahabad seeking information regarding release of payment under G I S in the name of his late wife. The CPIO vide his order dated 11 November 2009 informed him that payments are released district wise which accounts for some delay and that the particular claim would be released at an early date. Commission issued notice to the CPIO (holder of information) to show cause why penalty should not be imposed upon him for providing vague, incomplete and misleading information to the appellant and also why compensation should not be awarded to the appellant for the loss course to him on account of this action of the CPIO.
22	CIC/WB/A/2006/00548 CIC/WB/A/2009/000668 (43.73 KB)	26 Jun, 2009	Ms. Divya Raghunandan Vs. Deptt. of Biotechnology In this case although the failure to provide the information will not qualify for penalty u/s 20(1), which prescribes penalty specifically for violation of Sec 7(1), there is a case for compensation u/s 19(8)(b) which has been demanded by appellant Ms. Divya Raghunandan in her rejoinder to the letter of 18.6.’07 from CPIO Dep’t. of Biotechnology. However, the details of the loss or other detriment suffered have not been supplied, and appellant Ms. Divya Raghunandan is directed to submit to us the details of such loss or other detriment suffered, also within ten working days of the date of issue of this Decision Notice, to enable us to take a decision on any compensation that will become payable.

16

CIC/AD/A/2012/000603
(309.57 KB) pdf icon

10 May, 2012

Shri Vinod Kumar Goyal vs Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission A Block, Vikas Bhawan I.P. Estate New Delhi

Award of Compensation to the applicant - the Appellant stated that information supplied by the PIO is delayed and incorrect since it does not confirm the fact mentioned in the supporting documents. The public authority is accordingly directed to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- to the Appellant as compensation under section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act.

17

CIC/SM/C/2009/001297
(207.91 KB) pdf icon

03 Apr, 2012

Shri Gopal Singh vs CPIO, Central Bank of India, Zonal Office, Pawapuri Vihar, NH 28, Bhagwanpur, Muzaffarpur

Award of Compensation to the applicant for the detriment and inconveniences suffered by him - the circular of the public authority only mentioned that the application fee should be deposited only by way of cash against receipt or demand draft or bankers cheque - this circular, does not include IPO as one of the instruments for payment of application fee although the Central Government had already amended the Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules 2005 in the notification dated 17 May 2006.The Commission held that the Complainant has suffered a lot of detriment on account of the denial of the information certainly deserves to be compensated for this detriment and loss. CIC directed the bank to pay him a compensation of Rs.5000/-.

18

CIC/SG/A/2012/000211/18093
(51.84 KB) pdf icon

27 Mar, 2012

M.K. Sachan Vs. PIO, SR. Manager, Punjab and Sind Bank, Zonal Office, Lalbagh, Lucknow, UP

Section 19 (8)(b) – Compensation to be awarded to the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered
The commission held that in numerous decisions it has been held that information relating to leave and the attendance registers cannot be considered to be exempt information since this is the information regarding the public activity. Taking into the consideration the Appellant’s contention that he was seeking information regarding people appearing before the commission as appellant’s in their private capacity, it appeared that the denial of information was with a purpose to hide this information. The Commission further under section 19(8)(b) awarded a compensation of Rs. 2000/- to the appellant for the harassment to filing the appeal and the delay in getting the information.

19

CIC/SG/A/2011/003539/17278 Adjunct
(79.40 KB) pdf icon

15 Mar, 2012

K.K. Swami Vs. PIO, Food Safety and Standards, Authority of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Pragati Vihar, Delhi

section 19(8)(b) – Award of compensation of the applicant
The Commission held that the appellant was pursuing this matter and hence sought information whether anything concrete had been done by the Food Safety and Standard Authority of India. It is unfortunate that the PIO has not provided simple information sought by the Appellant. If the Food Safety and Standard Authority of India has taken no steps about specifying the safe level trans fats percentages in Ghee and Edible Oil they should atleast admit this. The Appellant has been unnecessarily harassed in pursuing this matter. Harassment of a common man by public authorities is socially abhorring and legally impermissible. The Commission under section 19(8)(b) of the RTI act awarded a compensation of Rs. 2000/- to the appellant for the loss and detriment suffered by him in pursuing the appeal. The penalty proceeding however is dropped giving benefit of doubt to the respondents and accepting their plea that they have not been able to understand the queries properly.

20

CIC/SM/A/2010/000905 & 1303
(207.07 KB) pdf icon

28 Mar, 2011

Shri R P Pushkar Delhi Vs. CPIO, Punjab National Bank

The Appellant had sought a number of details regarding the promotion of clerks to the rank of JMG Scale 1. By and large, the CPIO had referred him to the website of the HRD division of the Bank where apparently the results had been displayed. During the hearing, however, the Appellant submitted that the information displayed on the website was not printable.
CIC directed the CPIO to provide to the Appellant within 10 working days the desired information in hard copy form. The Appellant also submitted that he had to incur expenses and some detriment on account of the fact that he had to appeal before the CIC for obtaining the information which could have been provided to him in the first place by the CPIO himself. Therefore, in exercise of the powers vested in the CIC in section 19(8) (b) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the Bank to compensate him by an amount of Rs. 1000 (Rupees One thousand only) for the loss and detriment suffered by him.

21

CIC/DS/A/2010/001673
(89.04 KB) pdf icon

28 Mar, 2011

Shri Ashok Kumar Saxena, Moradabad Vs. LIC of India, Allahabad

The applicant preferred RTI application dated 22 October 2009 before the CPIO, LIC of India, Allahabad seeking information regarding release of payment under G I S in the name of his late wife. The CPIO vide his order dated 11 November 2009 informed him that payments are released district wise which accounts for some delay and that the particular claim would be released at an early date.
Commission issued notice to the CPIO (holder of information) to show cause why penalty should not be imposed upon him for providing vague, incomplete and misleading information to the appellant and also why compensation should not be awarded to the appellant for the loss course to him on account of this action of the CPIO.

22

CIC/WB/A/2006/00548 CIC/WB/A/2009/000668
(43.73 KB) pdf icon

26 Jun, 2009

Ms. Divya Raghunandan Vs. Deptt. of Biotechnology

In this case although the failure to provide the information will not qualify for penalty u/s 20(1), which prescribes penalty specifically for violation of Sec 7(1), there is a case for compensation u/s 19(8)(b) which has been demanded by appellant Ms. Divya Raghunandan in her rejoinder to the letter of 18.6.’07 from CPIO Dep’t. of Biotechnology. However, the details of the loss or other detriment suffered have not been supplied, and appellant Ms. Divya Raghunandan is directed to submit to us the details of such loss or other detriment suffered, also within ten working days of the date of issue of this Decision Notice, to enable us to take a decision on any compensation that will become payable.