Central Information Commission Room No.4, Club Building Old JNU Campus, New Delhi 110 067. Tel No: 011 26106140 Decision No.CIC/BS/A/2013/001583/VS/08901 Appeal No. CIC/BS/A/2013/001583/VS Dated: 21.01.2015 Appellant: Shri Rajan Gupta, R/o R.Z. 28A, Nr. Mahadeva Halwai Shop, Rajnagar Part2, Palam Colony, New Delhi 110077. Respondent: Date of Hearing: Central Public Information Officer/ Dy. CCM(Claims), Northern Railway, HQ. Office, Claims Branch, NDR Building, New Delhi. 16.01.2015 ORDER 1. The appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.01.2013 seeking information regarding disposal of his application dated 11.10.2012 related to refund for cancellation of tickets. The PIO responded on 15.02.2013. The appellant filed first appeal dated 30.03.2013 with the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA responded on 29.04.2013. The appellant filed second appeal dated 13.06.2013 with the Commission. Hearing: 2. The respondent participated in the hearing personally and stated that the appellant was wait listed but after he reached the station he discovered that the wait listed ticket had not been confirmed to travel so he made alternate arrangements for travelling to Pathankot where he was planning to go. 3. It was explained by the respondent that the appellant before going to Pathankot went to the counter to get a refund but the refund was not given to him. The appellant proceeded to Pathankot and on return he again made an attempt to get the refund, but in the meanwhile the refund possibility has become time barred. 4. It was in this light that the appellant had via RTI application dated 11.01.2013 sought the information on following 2 points: i) ii) rules of the refund. the action taken against the counter staff who did not give the refund. 5. The respondent stated that copy of the rules of refund have been provided to the appellant, vide letter dated 15.02.2013. On point No.2, the respondent said that in so far as the possible action against the staff is concerned, no action could be taken because the appellant could not identify the counter nor the staff member. The respondent also stated that the appellant did not participate in the hearing at the first appeal stage. The respondent stated that if it would have been known which staff member refused to give the refund, then certain specific action could have been possible. 6. The appellant did not participate in the hearing. 7. It will be appropriate for the respondent to send a letter to the appellant informing him about the efforts made by the respondent on the appellant’s complaint. Decision: 8. The respondent is directed to provide to the appellant, within 30 days of this order, the information as per para 7 above. The appeal is disposed of. Copy of the decision be given free of cost to the parties. Sd/ (Vijai Sharma) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (V.K. Sharma) Designated Officer