In the Court of the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, 4th Floor, Kolkata-700087.
CDF/Unit-I/Case No.397/2012.
1) Goutam Roy,
34D/21, Anupama Housing Complex,
Kolkata-52, P.S. Baguiati. ---------- Complainant
---Versus---
1) Subhojyoti Majumdar,
Regional Manager & State Public Information Oficer,
Dena Bank, Regional Office, ‘Mangal Kalash’,
2A, Shakespeare Sarani, 5th Floor, Kolkata-71,
P.S. Shakespeare Sarani.
2) Ashok K. Dutta,
Executive Manager & First Appellate Authority,
Dena Bank, Head Office,
Dena Corporate Centre,
C-10, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex,
Bandra (East), P.S. Bandra Kurla, Mumbai-400051. ----------- Opposite Parties
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Order No. 11 Dated 25-09-2013.
We have gone through the pleadings of the complainant, evidence and documents in particular and we find that on 10.5.12 complainant (ex-employee of Dena Bank) applied for obtaining information under the Right To Information Act 2005 to SPIO Dena Bank, Kolkata, Regional Office for procuring some cogent information related to the charge sheet (a) certified copies of C.S. to Goutam Roy ride memo no.KRO/PER/O-372/1654/2009 dt.15.6.09, (b) certified copies of day to day (from starting day to end day) inquiry proceedings duly signed by I.A., P.O., MW, C.S.O & D.R. held against aforesaid C.S. No. (c) certified copies of observation of I.A., P.O. and D.R. against C.S. no. KRO/PER/O-372/1654/2009 dt.15.6.09, (d) certified copies of ordersheet of disciplinary authority with a request to permit him to inspect original records with assistance of his choice. It was further requested to permit to inspect original record copy of original RTI application marked as ‘Annexure A’ SPIO Kolkata R.O. through its letter no. KRO:LG:RTI:159:12 dt.14.5.12 (marked as Annexure ‘B’) promised to supply the same as per RTI Act 2005. SPIO Kolkata even informed that “it is also required to pay expenses incurred by the bank for providing the information / inspection of record (marked as Annexure ‘C’). SPIO Kolkata also demanded Rs.10/- as prescribed by RTI Act, although court fee for Rs.10/- was affixed on the application, which is clearly visible on the Xerox copy (annexure ’A’) attached. Although the letter was dated 14.5.12 it was posted on 7.6.12 (annexure ‘D’).
Complainant sent Rs.10/- through IPO No.01F465710 (Annexure ‘E’) despatched by complainant on 18.6.12 which was received by Kolkata SPIO on 19.6.12.
On 21.7.12 the matter of disregarding complainant’s RTI application was reported to Shri Ashok K. Dutta, E.D and F.A.A. letter dt.23.7.12 which was received by head office Dena Bank at Mumbai (marked as Annexure ‘G-1’, ‘G-2’, ‘G-3’). Annexure G-3 is undated and complainant sent the copy on 30.7.12 to R.O. Kolkata which was received by R.O. Kolkata the next date, but wrongly dated 25.7.12 (marked as Annexure ‘H’). After seeing the complaint made to Head Office, Regional Office Kolkata dispatched a letter to complainant ref. no.KRO:RTI:227:12 dt.23.7.12 (Annexure ‘I’), but dispatch date is 2.8.12 which was received by complainant on 8.8.12. It revals from Annexure ‘J’ that according to complainant’s required information as per Annexure ‘A’ marked only two items, i.e. 5(a) & 5(d) are followed. But other required items in 5(b) & 5(c) were not given (as per Annexure ‘A’ marked). This matter was reported to SPIO Kolkata on 10.8.12. But till date no information is given by SPIO / o.p. no.1. Hence the case was filed by the complainant with the prayer contained in the petition of complaint.
O.ps. did not contest this case by filing w/v and matter was heard ex parte against the o.ps.
Decision with reasons:-
In view of the findings above and on perusal of the entire materials on record we find that o.ps. had no deficiency in service being service provider to their consumer / complainant and complainant since it relates to service matter.
Hence, ordered,
That the case is dismissed exparte without cost against o.ps..
