Central Information Commission
Naresh Luthra vs Delhi Electricity Regulatory ... on 21 February, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/DERCM/A/2023/643822
Naresh Luthra .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
DERC, Viniyamak Bhawan, Basant
Kaur Marg, Block C, Shivalik Colony,
Malviya Nagar, New Delhi 110016 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 15-02-2024
Date of Decision : 20-02-2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 30-03-2023
CPIO replied on : 18-04-2023
First appeal filed on : 18-05-2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 15-06-2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 08-09-2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 30.03.2023 seeking the following information:
"SUB: Seeking More detailed on information shared by the Tata power to the customer and to the Ombudsman and Details of on Ombudsman order and various meetings.1
Seeking Information regarding the Tata power addressing the impugned bill for CA . no 60001871114 dated 18.01.2020.
1) Information on the Site Visit dated 03.02.2020 by Tata power Officials.
Please share the information regarding the Site Visit dated 03-02-2020 :
a) Kindly provide the name/s of the individual/s who conducted the site visit.
b) Kindly provide the copy of customer report for the site visit conducted on 03.02.2020.
c) Please provide a detailed description of the activities carried out by the Tata Power officials during the site visit.
d) Kindly provide the DERC rules and regulations that allow for Tata Power officials to conduct a site visit without informing the customer and keeping him unaware.
e) Please provide information on why the Tata Power officials did not inform or update the customer about their site visit.
f) If the customer was informed, could you kindly share a signed copy by the consumer of the acknowledgment of the Tata Power officials' site visit .
g) Please share the information, what information was collected by Tata Power officials and how was it collected , clearly mentioning the tools used for collection these information.
2) Please provide more information regarding the meter reader responsible for taking the reading of the meter that was situated behind the dirty panel, and whose reading was not easily discernible.
a) Please provide the name of the individual who recorded the meter reading for the CA number 60001871114 on January 17th, 2020.
b) Please provide the information on the method used by the meter reader to record the reading, considering that the meter panel was not easily visible to the naked eye.
c) Please provide information on additional tools or equipment provided by Tata Power to its meter readers to enable them to record accurate meter 2 readings when the meter panel inside the enclosure is obscured by a dirty front glass.
d) If Tata Power has not provided any additional tools to its meter readers in such cases, could you please provide information on the competency of the meter reader who, instead of cleaning the outer panel glass to obtain an accurate reading, chose to record an approximation of the meter reading.
3) Information on the e-mail written to the Chairman for intervention , Tata Power misusing DERC regulations.
a) Could you please furnish information about why the images were not shared with the consumer, even though a site visit was carried out on 03.02.2020, and the consumer had requested it on 25.02.2020.
4) Requesting information on the DERC regulation that allegedly allowed Tata Power to intimidate the consumer by sending notices and demanding payment of an illegitimate amount related to the disputed bill.
a) Kindly provide information on the DERC regulation that allowed Tata Power to send disconnection notices to intimidate the consumer , forcing paying an amount that he was not liable for and to charge an LPSC of ₹6.19/- that was not reversed at a later stage.
b) Please share the name the competent authorities mentioned in the above e- mail who are demanding these extraneous amounts along with the LPSC od ₹ 6.19/- from the consumer.
5) Kindly provide information about the hearings that was held by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum.
a) Please provide the minutes of all hearings starting from the initial hearing held on 18.08.2020, up to the final hearing on 29.10.2022.
6) Information sought about the images that were shared by Tata Power and the CGRF in support of the consumer's complaint regarding the contested bill generated by Tata Power on 18.1.2020 for CA number # 60001871114.
a) Please provide the date on which Tata Power shared the images with the complainant in relation to the complaint about the inaccurate bill for the first time?
3b) Please share how the images were shared with the complainant and Support the same with supporting fact.
c) Please share the date when the images were shared by the Tata power with the CGRF.
d) Please provide the original images in their unaltered format as captured on 03.02.2020, and share them via email to the requester's email id, which is [email protected].
7) Please provide a copy of the original complaint that was submitted by the complainant to the CGRF regarding the incorrect bill generated by Tata Power on 18.01.2020, and share it via email with the requester's email address, which is [email protected]
8) Please share the information on the CGRF's findings with respect to the comparison of the consumer's previous year's consumption, which was conducted by Tata Power to support the accuracy of the bill generated on 18.01.2020. Additionally, please share the relevant section of the reference or observation made by the CGRF in their Order dated 01.12.2020, which can be found on page 7 of 9 of their Order dated 01.12.2020.
9) Please share the information on the name of the party was responsible for the futile exercise as per the Observation of the CGRF as mentioned in the page 7 of 9 of their Order dated 01.12.2020.
10) Kindly provide information on the reasons that complicated the issue and prolonged the hearing, as stated in the CGRF's Order dated 01.12.2020. These details can be found on page 8 of 9. Please share the relevant information.
11) Please provide the information mentioned on page 8 of 9 of the CGRF's Order dated 01.12.20202 regarding the name of the party responsible for complicating and prolonging the hearing.
12) Please provide the information on the documentation not provided by Tata Power to the complainant in a timely manner, as mentioned in the CGRF's Order C.No. 61/2020 dated 01.12.2020. This information can be found on page 8 of 9 of the Order. Kindly share the relevant details.
13) Please share the copy of the submission made by the respondent on 23.11.2020 and the submission made by the complainant on 24.11.2020 before the CGRF. Please share point by point responses provided by the Tata power to 4 the concerns raised by the complainant dated vide the e-mails dated 19.10.2020 and 24.11.2020 before the CGRF. Below is the E-mail snippet dated 19.10.2020?
14) Please share the copy of the response submitted by the complainant to the Electricity Ombudsman via email on 23.08.2021
15) Please share the Copy of the Appeal documents Submitted to the electricity Ombudsman by the Complainant regarding the Order of the CGRF CG No. 61/2020
16) Kindly provide the minutes of the meeting held on 25.08.2021 by the Electricity Ombudsman, which pertained to the appeal filed against the CGRF order CG.no.61/2020.
a) Please share the relevant rules and regulations of DERC which allowed the electricity Ombudsman, Mr. S C Vashishta not to share the Minutes of the meeting dated 25.8.2021 when it was explicitly asked by the Complainant.
17) Seeking Information on DERC Regulation 30 (13)
a) Kindly provide the regulation that authorizes Tata Power to disregard the genuine images submitted by the Complainant as evidence against the disputed bill produced by Tata Power on 09.08.2021, CA no. 60001871114, where the Complainant cited regulation 30 (13) that permits the consumer to provide images in support of the incorrect bill, which is considered for adjusting the subsequent bill.
b) Applicable DERC rules for sharing the images shared vide registered mobile on WhatsApp and e-mail i. Please share the DERC regulation that allowed Tata power not to work as per DERC Regulation 30(13) and ii. Please share the DERC regulation for not given the benefit of adjusting the bill when he used his consumer rights to provide meter readings through the appropriate channel.
18) Please provide information on how the Tata Power Connect App is utilized for submitting meter readings i. Tata power updated that Uploading the images for meter reading vide the Tata power Connect App is not available to the Tata power consumer in case site visit is done.
5Please provide information on the actions taken by the Authority in response to the allegations against Electricity Ombudsman misusing his office and the DERC regulation allowing Tata Power to share forged images without any consequences.
19) Please share action report of the authority in response to the formal complaint filed to the Chairman DERC against Mr. S C Vashishta, the Electricity Ombudsman, who is accused of misuse of office.
20) Please provide me with the information of the relevant Authority or Commission where a complaint can be filed against any official/s of Tata Power or DERC for violating the code of conduct rule book? Please share the complete office address, email address, and contact number along with the name of the official in charge.
21) Please share the DERC regulation which outlines the responsibilities of the Electricity Ombudsman and the CGRF in verifying the veracity of evidence presented to them, and share the information that permits the acceptance of forged images and false submissions by Tata Power in support of impugned bills.
22) Please provide information on the penalty that can be imposed against the consumer under the relevant DERC rules and regulations for the use of forgery such as forged documents, forged images, or false submissions, to support a claim made before the escalation channels.
23) Please provide the original images in unaltered format as captured by Tata Power as shared by them on the email address "[email protected]" in support of the disputed bill dated May 21, 2022 with bill no. 14004029597 , in their original format. Share them via email to the requester's email id, which is [email protected]
24) Please share the Regulation which allowed the Tata power to capture the images on 19.04.2022 when they are under no obligation to capture in 100 % cases.
25) Information on the bill generated by Tata power
a) Please give the calculation of the multiplying factor of 1.0323 .
b) What is the Period taken into consideration, Bill Period or the reading period for calculating this multiplying factor. Please specify.
6c) Please share the DERC regulation if Bill period is used to calculate the bifurcation of units in the slab and fixed charges calculation over the reading period
d) Please share the DERC regulation for not using the Reading period for the bifurcation of units in the slab and for fixed charges calculation
e) Please share the information on 1 day difference in bill period and reading period as mentioned in the Tata power electricity bill for consumer.
23 ) Seeking information on calculation of award
a) How was the award amount of ₹ 800 calculated by the CGRF
b) How was the LPSC adjusted which was collected by the Tata power for not paying this extraneous charges .
c) Please share the information on the CGRF calculation in calculating the value of the time for which Tata Power used the customer's money, which they were not entitled to, and how much was the exact amount given to the consumer for this? Tata Power received this extra amount around February 2020, which was adjusted in the February 2021 bill.
d) Please share the extra amount paid to the Tata Power by the consumer for the bill dated 18.01.2020 with bill number 10405061248."
The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 18.04.2023 stating as under:
"1. This information is not available with this office.
2. (a to g) Site visit report is not available with this office. Information sought vide 2(a) to 2(g) is not available with this office.
3 & 4. This information is not available with this office.
5 & 6. All regulations promulgated by DERC are available on DERC website.
7. This information is not available with this office.
8. This information is not available with this office. And the Request for information is transferred to CGRF-TPDDL.7
9. The order CGRF dated 01.12.2020 has been disposed vide Ombudsman order dated 07.09.2021, the copy which has already been provided to applicant Shri Naresh Luthra.
a) This information contains 2 pages hence Rs.4/- @Rs.2/- per page needs to be deposited for obtaining this information.
b) This information contains 30 pages hence Rs.60/- @Rs.2/- per page needs to deposit for obtaining this information.
C & d) There was no such meeting held.
e) This information is not available with this office.
10 a) All regulations promulgated by DERC are available on DERC website.
11 & 12. This information is not available with this office.
12(a to e) This is an unsubstantiated allegation and not a request for information hence not covered under RTI.
13. This information is not available with this office.
14. DERC (Forum for Redressal of Grievance of the consumers and Ombudsman) Regulations 2018 deals with the subject and is available on DERC website.
15. & 16. This information is not available with this office.
17. All regulations promulgated by DERC are available on DERC website.
18. to 22. This information is not available with this office."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.05.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 15.06.2023, upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
8Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present in person.
Respondent: Shri Rajendra Padhi, Dy. Director (Law) and Ms. Rakhi Saxena, CCO present in person.
The Appellant, during the hearing, reiterated the contents of his RTI application and instant appeal and submitted that he is not satisfied with the response given by the Respondent on his RTI application without mentioning specific ground of second appeal related to particular point(s) of the RTI application.
The Respondent submitted that vide their letter dated 18.04.2023, complete point-wise reply/information, as per the documents available on record was provided to the Appellant. Further, the FAA had also upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
Decision:
The Commission upon a perusal of records and after scrutinizing the contents of instant RTI Application observes that the information sought by the Appellant in his RTI application is indeterminate and is also voluminous in nature, and collation and compilation of which would entail diversion of manpower resources of the Public Authority and thus, cannot be provided in view of Section 7(9) of RTI Act. The same can be garnered from the relevant provisions of Section 7(9) of RTI Act which is reproduced below for ready reference -
"...7. Disposal of request.--
xxx (9) An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question..."
It also appears that the Appellant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional. It is 9 rather unfortunate that even the best of intentions have to not only stand the test of procedural requirements and fetters laid down in the RTI Act but also stand the test of practicality, a notion well recognised by superior Courts through various judgments such as the Hon'ble Supreme Court's observation in Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) & Anr. v. Aditya Bandhopadhyay and others [(2011) 8 SCC 497] stating that:
"37. xxxxx The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."(Emphasis Supplied)......."
Further, the issue raised by the Appellant challenging the veracity of information furnished by the CPIO is purely a matter of grievance which is outside the mandate of RTI Act. In this regard, the Appellant is advised about the powers of the Commission under the RTI Act by relying on certain precedents of the superior Courts as under:
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 has held as under:
"6. ....proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied) The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:10
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
While the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied) No intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Date 20.02.2024 Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (R K Rao) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181827 Date 11