RAILWAY HELPLINE ON RUNNING TRAIN

If you have any problem in a running train, send SMS on +918121281212 quoting train number, coach number, seat/berth number or PNR and problem in short. I had very good experience of this number while traveling from Vadodara to Hyderabad. Problem was attended in less than 15 minutes. Save this number on your mobile and use it in case of need.

Example of SMS:

train______ [space] coach_______ [space] berth ____ or PNR _________ [space]  no water in toilet or coach dirty etc

Success Story: HOW RTI HELPED GET REJECTED INSURANCE CLAIM

My brother’s health insurance claim was rejected by United India Insurance Co, Divisional Office, Regional Office and also Head Office. Insurance Ombudsman, Ahmedabad also upheld rejection of claim. Following five reasons were communicated in piecemeal for rejection:

[a]. Late intimation of hospitalization by 5 days [clause 5.3 of policy]

[b]. Any kind of Ayurvedic treatment is not payable as per policy terms and conditions [no clause mentioned]

[c] Claim is within 2 years of no-claim period [clause No. 4.3 of policy]

[d]. Indoor treatment not required for this operation.

[e]. Bill for Rs.6500/- has no number.

Under my guidance, my brother filed RTIs with Insurance Co and Ombudsman office, both of which could not substantiate and produce basis on which these reasons were assigned for repudiation of claim.

Armed with RTI replies, my brother filed consumer complaint with Gandhinagar District Consumer Forum on 20-12-2013. The forum upheld claim and awarded Rs.15036/- including claim amount, with interest and compensation of Rs.3000/- and expenses Rs.2000/- per its judgement dated 03-04-2014. Insurance Company had practically no say, since claim in complaint was fully substantiated with documentary evidence procured through RTI. Insurance Company and Ombdusman were exposed for mischievous rejection of claim.

My brother’s regulatory complaint with IRDA for violation of its directives under IRDA Act is being followed up, so that in larger public interest, such insurance claims are not rejected on unsubstantiated grounds.

080514

Improving RTI implementation by CIC--Recovery of Penalties

Date: 02-05-2014                                                                            By email & post

To,

Director – RTI

Department of Personnel and Training,

Ministry of Personnel, PG & Pensions,

Govt of India, New Delhi-110001

Email: dirrti-dopt@nic.in

Dear Sir,

Subject: Improving RTI implementation by CIC--Recovery of Penalties

This has further reference to my letter dated 21-04-2014 addressed to you on the captioned subject. CPIO & Joint Secretary, CIC has, vide his letter No. CIC/CPIO/13/2007 dated 18-03-2014, attributed non-recovery of penalties to inadequate powers of CIC. To counter his claim of inadequate powers, I humbly quote relevant extracts from judgments as under, which I hope CIC would also be aware of:

1. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in judgement dated 07-12-2007 in Appeal [criminal] No. 1685/2007 of Sakiri Vasu VS. State of UP has stated as:

“18. It is well settled that when a power is given to an authority to do
something it includes such incidental or implied powers which would ensure the proper doing of that thing. In other words, when any power is expressly granted by the statute, there is impliedly included in the grant, even without special mention, every power and every control the denial of which would render the grant itself ineffective. Thus where an Act confers jurisdiction it impliedly also grants the power of doing all such acts or employ such means as are essentially necessary for its execution.”
[Emphasis added]

___________________________________________________________

2. From judgement dated 27-01-2009 of Hon'ble HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA in C.C.C.No. 525 of 2008 (Civil) between SRI.G.BASAVARAJU v/s SMT. ARUNDATHI:

"S.20 of RTI Act provides for penalties. It confers powers on the Commission on the basis of which it can enforce its order. The Act having provided for constitution of the Commission and the power to impose the penalties by way of levy of fine and also the Statutory right to recommend to the Government for disciplinary action against the State Information Officer, itself has the necessary powers / provisions, in the form of the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act. It is cardinal principle of interpretation of Statute, well settled by catena of decisions of the Apex Court, that Courts or tribunals, must be held to possess power to execute its own order. Further, the RTI Act, which is a self-contained code, even if it has not been specifically spelt out, must be deemed to have been conferred upon the Commission the power in order to make its order effective, by having recourse to S.20." [Emphasis added]

___________________________________________________________

3. THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No. 3650 OF 2012

Date of judgement: 08-01-2013

           

“The provisions of section 19 of the RTI Act deal with appeals; and the powers of State Information Commissioner while deciding said appeals are prescribed in subsection (8) clause (a). This subsection enables the State Information Commissioner to require the public authority to take any such steps as may be necessary to secure compliance with the provisions of RTI Act. Sub-clause (i) then permits the said authority to achieve very same goal by providing access to information in a particular form. Main clause (a) is “general” in nature & ends with words “include”. Its subclauses  (i) to (vi) show the mention of specific powers or steps which may be taken. Thus, this placement & arrangement reveals the legislative mandate that powers later specified in subclauses are not designed to restrict the wide field kept deliberately open for the appellate forums and not to encroach upon the general power to issue various types of directions under main clause. The stipulation of specific powers is without prejudice to generality of vast power conferred by S.19(8)(a) i.e. main clause. There is no reason to cut down sweep of this procedure aimed at effective implementation as it militates with its completeness within the RTI Act envisaged & achieved through overriding effect in S. 22 & bar of jurisdiction of civil court in S.23. All the steps/measures required to be adopted for achieving the purpose, object of & compliance with RTI Act, are therefore, open & permitted, and the appellate authority can issue direction to such public authority to take any of those steps as are suitable to coerce the persons having information to abide by directions issued under the RTI Act. Said steps giving teeth to it & intended at making the law effective, therefore, may include a direction to use other powers available to such public authority i.e. conferred upon it under any other law …………..”[Emphasis added].

             I humbly feel that it is not lack of power but strong will on the part of  CIC to effectively recover penalties. I hope CIC would be aware that such indifferent approach on recovery of penalties will ultimately kill RTI and thereby fundamental right of citizens under article 19.1.a. There could be vigilance angle too for not taking action to effectively recover penalties.

I believe that only your strong intervention will sensitize CIC on its short comings.

Yours faithfully,

J P Shah

Copies to:

1. Mrs. Sushma Singh

Chief Information Commissioner,

Central Information Commission,

August Kranti Bhavan, Bhikaji Cama Place,

New Delhi - 110 066

Email: sushmas@nic.in

2. Shri Rahul Gandhi,

Vice President, Indian National Congress, New Delhi

Email: rahulgandhi@hotmail.com

--this is ground reality of your flag-ship enactment.

IMPROVING RTI IMPLEMENTATION BY CIC

Date: 21-04-2014                                                                By email & post

To,

Director – RTI

Department of Personnel and Training,

Ministry of Personnel, PG & Pensions,

Govt of India, New Delhi

Email: dirrti-dopt@nic.in

Dear Sir,

Subject: Improving RTI implementation by Central Information Commission

Kindly refer to my letter dated 03-02-2014 addressed to you on the captioned subject. This letter was marked to CIC and US [IR], DoPT on     14-02-2014. CPIO & Secretary, CIC has thankfully replied to my said letter vide his letter No. CIC/CPIO/13/2007 dated 18-03-2014 [copy of which is attached herewith].  Being interested in making RTI effective, I submit rejoinder as under to CIC averment:

1. Non-compliance of CIC orders: I thank CIC for having taken note and hope that matter would be placed before appropriate forum of CIC for operationalising suggestion on the ground without much delay. You will kindly concur with me that lack of effective implementation and good intention are two vital fields due to which pro-citizen policies of Govt. and political parties remain in books only. I hope DoPT will contribute in proper implementation at CIC level by persuasion and follow up.

2. Penalty for non-compliance of CIC order: I thank CIC for having taken note of this suggestion and I hope that matter will be taken up with ICs in their meetings to arrive at a uniform decision to at least seek explanation of defaulting CPIOs for non-compliance without exception and then penalizing on case to case basis. I hope Learned ICs would uphold sanctity of their own orders along with fundamental right of common citizens and not allow CPIOs to throw CIC orders in dust bin. Each decision of CIC costs nearly Rs.15-20000/- to the public money.

3. E-filing of Appeals and Complaints to CIC: It appears that rule 8 has been interpreted in a manner which cause harassment to common appellant/complainant. There is no reason why signed scanned copy of appeal or complaint in pdf format cannot be treated as duly verified and authenticated as required in rule 8. Even otherwise also CIC does not check veracity of signatures on complaints or appeals or establishes identity of appellant/complainant before processing appeals/complaints sent in hard copies.  In addition to this, as stated in my earlier letter dated 03-02-2014, even when signed copies are repeatedly sent by speed or registered post to CIC after e-filing, it takes months for CIC to register appeals/complaints. I request you to kindly persuade CIC in this matter from your end to ease e-filing of appeals/complaints. CIC does not appear to be interested in avoiding delay, irritation and expense to common citizens by justifying  “signed copy awaited” reason to not regiser.

4. Recovery of Penalties by CIC: On this point I humbly state that CIC is trying to find alibi for not recovering penalties effectively. My suggestion to mail copy of penalty order to salary disbursing officer or head of public authority of CPIO will have very positive effect and it does not require any amendment to law or rule. A simple cost effective procedure will ensure that penalty is recovered promptly, unless CPIO is well connected administratively or politically. I know mental position of law/rule breaking officer, the moment he knows that matter is being brought to the knowledge of highest officer of the public authority. In case there is pending litigation, at least CIC will be informed by public authority about stay order etc. I humbly solicit effective intervention of DoPT in this issue also. In fact CIC is encouraging non-payment of penalties by having soft corner towards defaulting CPIOs by resorting to untenable technicalities.

5. Audio Hearing: Though connected extensively with RTI since 2005 on all India level, I have not heard of use of mobile or landline for audio hearing by CIC. An RTI to CIC may reveal number of such audio hearings undertaken by CIC since 2006, but I apprehend that record may not be separately available with CIC. If audio hearing is preferred [ with choice left to appellants/complainants], appellants/complainants living in villages or taluka places may not be required to visit district head quarters incurring time and cost for 4-5 minutes of say at video conferencing.

6. Attending e-mails by CIC: The contention of CIC that it is autonomous under section 12.4 of RTI Act and hence rules/guidelines made by Govt. of  India in the matter of emails are not applicable to CIC. This then means that CIC can function in any manner it chooses, even by violating laws, rules, regulations, policies or guidelines of Govt. of India. I think CPIO & Secretary CIC is over-stretching section 12.4 to have absolute unbridled freedom. You will kindly agree that in a democratic set-up and rule of law, no authority can claim to be above law or function in arbitrary manner without accountability to none, more so CIC which is guardian of RTI of aam admi of India and his fundamental right under article 19.1.a. If CIC has administrative difficulties [ like shortage of staff etc] in attending large number of emails of citizens, then the solution would be to ensure that mechanism is put in place to ensure that emails are attended, rather than not attending emails at all. It shows negative approach of CIC to common citizens who use emails for saving on time and cost on postages. I will try to dig out by RTI record of CIC which lead to such anti-citizen bizarre decision. This issue also requires serious persuasive intervention of DoPT.

Yours faithfully,

J P Shah

Encl: as above

Copies to:

Mrs. Sushma Singh

Chief Information Commissioner,

Central Information Commission,

August Kranti Bhavan, Bhikaji Cama Place,

New Delhi - 110 066

Email: sushmas@nic.in

2. Shri Rahul Gandhi,

Vice President, Indian National Congress, New Delhi

Email: rahulgandhi@hotmail.com

--this is ground reality of your flag-ship enactment.

SUCCESS STORY

Correct Commutation Amount Paid due to use of RTI, which was pending for seven years         

In Sept 2013 two retired professors of Junagadh Agricultural University approached me for solution to their problem, as they were paid commutation of pension by applying wrong formula. Matter was lingering from 2007, despite various representations to University. I prepared RTI for University, which passed on the bucks to Directorate of Pension and Provident Fund, Gandhinagar, Gujarat for not providing guidance in the matter. I prepared another RTI to the said directorate, which then provided University with detailed guidelines and correct formula. By Feb 2014, University paid arrears not only to these two professors, but nearly 400 other staff ranging from Rs.25000/- to Rs.135000/-, based on correct formula.