के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग Central Information Commission बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई निल्ली, New Delhi – 110067 File No: CIC/DOCAF/A/2025/604581 Anurag Gupta .….अपीलक VERSUS बनाम CPIO : Department of Consumer ….प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent Affairs, (NCH Division), Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi - 110001.

Date of Hearing : 23-03-2026 Date of Decision : 25-03-2026 INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Khushwant Singh Sethi Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on : 11-12-2024 CPIO replied on : 18-12-2024 First appeal filed on : 20-12-2024 First Appellate Authority’s order : 15-01-2025 2nd Appeal dated : 27-01-2025 Information sought:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11-12-2024 seeking the following information:

“Kindly provide the below mentioned information under Right to Information Act 2005 :-

1. From the Year 2021 to till Date 11-12-2024, Kindly Provide the Number of Complaints registered on National Consumer Helpline against OLA Scooty/ OLA Electric Technologies Private Limited. (Give Year wise Data)

2. Out of Received Complaints from 2021 to till date 11-12-2024 against OLA, Kindly provide the number of Complaints which is successfully resolved. (Give Year wise Data)

3. Kindly Provide the Number of those Complaints whose nature/ subject is risk of life/ Danger to Public which are filed against OLA Scooty/ OLA Electric Technologies Private Limited between 2021 to till date 11-12-2024.(Give Year wise Data)”

2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 18-12-2024 stating as under:

“I am to refer to your RTI application no. DOCAF/R/E/24/00874 dated 11th December, 2024 seeking information under RTI Act, 2005 and to state that information cannot be disclosed under Section 8 1(d) of the RTI Act, 2005.”

3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20-12-2024.

The FAA vide its order dated 15-01-2025, upheld the reply given by the CPIO.

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Appellant’s authorized representative Ms. Yasmeen, Advocate, attended the hearing through video conference.

Respondent: 1. Mr. Prashant Dubey, DS, on behalf of the National Consumer Helpline (NCH), attended the hearing in person.

2. Ms. Kanagavalli Mahendran, Under Secretary, on behalf of Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA), attended the hearing in person.

5. The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant stated that the appellant sought information regarding the Number of Complaints registered on National Consumer Helpline against OLA Scooty/ OLA Electric Technologies Private Limited, Number of those Complaints filed against OLA Scooty/ OLA Electric Technologies Private Limited between 2021 to till date 11-12-2024 whose subject is risk of life/Danger to Public etc. The Counsel contended the appellant had sought only numerical figures and not any trade secrets/information relating to commercial confidence. Hence, the sought numerical figures cannot be exempted U/s 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005. The Counsel further submitted that there is larger public interest involved in seeking information about the number of complaints registered against the OLA Scooty/ OLA Electric Technologies Private Limited.

6. The Respondent submitted that the sought information pertains to a third-party and hence the sought information was denied U/s 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. The respondent further submitted that there is court order with respect to the third-party and they are constrained by the same.

7. The Commission queried the respondent as to whether any database/information is maintained with column/specification/head on successfully resolved complaints. To this, the respondent submitted that no such information is maintained under the column/head as successfully resolved complaints. The Commission queried the respondent as to whether they maintain information on complaints whose nature/subject is r