केन्द्रीय सचू ना आयोग Central Information Commission बाबा गगं नाथ माग,ग मनु नरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई दिल्ली, New Delhi – 110067 नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/TRAOI/A/2024/618205 Shri Narendra Agarwal … अपीलकता/ग Appellant VERSUS/बनाम PIO, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India …प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent Date of Hearing : 19.06.2025 Date of Decision : 19.06.2025 Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on : 17.02.2024 PIO replied on : 04.03.2024 First Appeal filed on : 10.03.2024 First Appellate Order on : 20.03.2024 2^ndAppeal/complaint received on : 01.05.2024 Information sought and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 17.02.2024 seeking information about “A Memorandum titled “Offering void & misleading tariff plan & poor grievance redressal mechanism under TCCR-2012” forwarded on 23.01.2024. He raised queries on the following points:-

(1) “Provide copy of TRAI official memorandum forwarding issue’s to the concerned functionary.

(2) Provide copy of reply received from concerned functionary toward issued raised with Authority.”

The CPIO, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India vide letter dated 04.03.2024 replied as under:-

“1 to 2 TRAI Act, 1997 does not mandate handling of individual consumer complaints by TRAI. However, in order to protect the interest of consumers, TRAI has mandated all Telecom Service Providers to establish a two-tier complaint/grievance redressal mechanism for handling consumer complaints. In terms of this mechanism, a consumer can lodge service-related complaints at the complaint center of their Telecom Service Providers (TSPs). In case a complaint is not redressed satisfactorily by the service provider at the complaint center, an appeal can be registered with the Appellate Authority of the TSPs.

In case some complaints are received in TRAI directly, the same are forwarded to TSPs to redress as per the regulatory framework. Accordingly, the complaint dated 23.1.2024 was forwarded to the concerned service provider.”

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.03.2024. The FAA vide order dated 20.03.2024 held as under:-

“2. Xx

3. Accordingly CPIO is directed to provide specific information in respect of queries raised, if available with TRAI, within two weeks of issue of this order.

4. Further, since TRAI does not handle complaints of individual consumer, Shri Narendra Agarwal is advised to approach directly to his concerned Service Provider for redressal of his grievance.

5. The appeal is accordingly disposed off.”

Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the non-compliance of the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.

Appellant: Present through video conference Respondent: Shri S K Dutta – CPIO, Joint Advisor, TRAI and Dr. N K Chowdhary –

Senior Research Officer, Consumer Affairs, TRAI were present during hearing.

Both parties reiterated their respective contentions; the Appellant was not satisfied with the response provided to him while the Respondent stated that information available on record had been duly furnished to the Appellant, in terms of the RTI Act. The Appellant contended that the PIO had not complied with the FAA’s order.

Decision:

Perusal of records of the instant case reveals that the Respondent had furnished information available on records, as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, in terms of the provisions of the Act. It is noted that the FAA had in fact passed the order mechanically directing “to provide specific information in respect of queries raised, if available with TRAI” and at the same time, in the following paragraph the FAA held:” since TRAI does not handle complaints of individual consumer, Shri Narendra Agarwal is advised to approach directly to his concerned Service Provi