Whether The First Appellate Authority has the power to summon Appellant ??? Reply To Tripura Assembly

Response to the letter No.F.1(203)-LA/78-I, dated 27^th Apr 2017. 

To

The First Appellate Authority,

C/O The Public Information Officer,

Tripura Legislative Assembly Secretariat,

Agartala-799010

Sub: Response to the letter No.F.1(203)-LA/78-I, dated 27^th Apr 2017.

Respected First Appellate Authority (FAA),

1.     I have filed first appeal on 8^th Feb 2017. On 18^th Mar 2017 i.e 39^th Day after receiving the first appeal, The FAA asked for my appearance before it on 25^th Apr 2017 i.e on 78^th Day of filing First appeal. Again on 1^st of May 2017, I have received another communication regarding appearance on 18^th May 2017, i.e on 101th day, issuing warning that it would take harsh step, on failure.

2.     u/s 19 (6) of The RTI Act, 2005; An appeal under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be disposed of within thirty days of the receipt of the appeal or within such extended period not exceeding a total of forty-five days from the date of filing thereof, as the case may be, for reasons to be recorded in writing. The FAA is under obligation to dispose the 1^st appeal within 30 days in general cases, it can also take 45 days, with reasons recorded. This time limit is clearly breached. This Act of Omission by The FAA is illegal and contrary to the objectives of the Act.

3.     The other Important issues in these Communications are;

a)     Whether the FAA has the legal sanction to summon the Appellant?

b) Whether the FAA has the legal sanction to take Harsh measures against Appellant

c)    Whether the FAA can breach the time line of 30days specified malafidely 

4.     According to RTI Act, 2005, and Tripura Right to Information Rules, 2008, The FAA authority does not have any legal sanction regarding the three issues mentioned above. 

5.     u/s 5(2) of the Act, the sanction is only to appoint one officer to receive appeals is present; 

6. u/s7(8) Where a request has been rejected under sub-section (1), the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall communicate to the person making the request,—

(i) the reasons for such rejection;

(ii) the period within which an appeal against such rejection may be preferred; and

(iii) the particulars of the appellate authority.

Thus this section creates the FAA; and does not grant any powers on Appellant.

7. Similarly u/s 11(4) A notice given under sub-section (3) shall include a statement that the third party to whom the notice is given is entitled to prefer an appeal under section 19 against the decision.

8. u/s 19 (1) Any person who, does not receive a decision within the time specified in sub-section (1) or clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 7, or is aggrieved by a decision of the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may within thirty days from the expiry of such period or from the receipt of such a decision prefer an appeal to such officer who is senior in rank to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer as the case may be, in each public authority: This sub-section clearly explains who can be the FAA, and the Rights of Information seeker on rejection or refusal of information.

9. u/s 19 (5) In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, who denied the request. Thus it is the obligation of SPIO to appear before the FAA and defend or explain why he/she has not provided the information. This section does not lay any obligation on the Appellant to appear and also does not grant any power to summon him.

10. Furthermore under Tripura Right to Information Rules, 2008, Chapter-VI does not grant any authority to perform the three above mentioned issues.

11. Therefore, It can be surmised from the above facts that

       i.            The FAA is violating section 19(6) of the Act.

     ii.            The FAA’s call the appellant to appear before it is ultra virus it powers.

  iii.            The FAA’s warning to take harsh measures also ultra virus it powers.

  iv.            The Act of Omission is malafide.

 v.            The Powers FAA is only to seek explanation from SPIO, why he/she has not given information, upon which; the FAA can decide the First Appeal.

Therefore we would Request the First Appellate Authority to decide the Appeal without our appearance and Order the SPIO to provide the Information Free of Cost within 7 days.

Thanking You Sir.

Yours truly,

Venu Prasad M & Thandava Yogesh

3/3 LLB, Andhra University,

H:NO:55-7-61/3,

HB Colony,

Visakhapatnam-530022

RTI to AP SIC on its legal Obligation under RTI Act, 2005

Information seeking under Section-3 and Section-6(1) of RTI Act, 2005

To

The Public Information Officer,

Andhra Pradesh Information Commission,
      Samachara Hakku Bhavan,
      D.No.5-4-399,
      Behind Mozam-Jahi Market,
      Hyderabad - 500001

Sub: Information seeking under Section-3 and Section-6(1) of RTI Act, 2005

1.     u/s 25(1) of RTI act, 2005 the State Information Commission (here after referred as SIC) shall prepare annual reports. Please provide the web site link of 2016, 2015, 2014 annual reports of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana.

2.     u/s 4(1)(b)(iv) of RTI Act,  Please provide website link of the guidelines which regulate the furnishing of information by Ministry or Department to SIC

3.     If the SIC has kept all the reports submitted by Ministry or Department u/s 25(2) RTI Act, in any website please provide the link.

4.     Please provide the copies of all the recommendations u/s 25(5) RTI Act, specifying the steps which ought in its opinion to be taken for promoting conformity to any public authority from SIC inception to till date.

5.     u/s 19(8)(a)(vi) RTI Act, how many public authorizes have been ordered to submit 4(1)(b) compliance report. If the reports are available online please provide the website link of the same.

6.     i) Under the web link http://apic.gov.in/AndhraICSLTracking/infous41b.do a staggering 95.61% of public authorities have not furnished information u/s 4(1)(b) and Only 380 out of 8657 submitted.

ii) Under the web link http://apic.gov.in/TSICSLTracking/infous41b.do  a staggering 99.18% of public authorities have not furnished Information u/s 4(1)(b) and only 73 out of 8939 submitted.

With the above points 6(i) and 6(ii), it can be surmised that 4(1)(b) implementation is a not happening in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana State. Please provide all the order copies where SIC has used it powers conferred u/s 19(8)(a)(vi) of RTI Act, any time and order strict compliance with 4(1)(b) implementation.

We have attached 10 Rs IPO (34F 012739) towards fee for RTI Application as per Section-6(1) of RTI Act. If Honorable PIO decides we need to pay any extra fee, as per Section 7(3) of RTI Act please provide the details of Extra Fee payment to get the information.

Thanking You Sir,

Yours Sincerely,

Rajendra Kumar K & Thandava Yogesh,

3/3 LLB, Andhra University

H:No-55-7-61/3

Durga Temple Line, HB Colony

Visakhapatnam-530022

REGD Post: RN891759121IN

Motor Vehicle Accident Claims_more than 25 Lakh Can be legally Claimed for 10000/moth earning diseased

Motor Vehicle Accident Claims 

Any loss to a family is undesirable and unfortunate. However in the larger play of the Supreme Being some of our beloved one departs earlier than us, thus leading us into depression and sorrow. This sorrow will be even more if the victim is a sole bread winner of the family. The entire family is thrown out of safety net as far provided by the bread winner.

However with the tortuous law evolution there is a provision for monetary compensation for the unfortunate loss caused. Though this monetary compensation will never bring the person back, but surely give us some protection which the victim used to provide. The provision of monetary compensation is provided in Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.

Through this article we would like to bring awareness on the computation of compensation in Motor Vehicle accidents.

When a person is Injured or Died or his/her property is damaged… the legal heirs of the victim can claim compensation through Motor vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal.
In case of Injury or Death the compensation heads are Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary.

A) Pecuniary compensation are again classified under 
A-1) Loss of earnings
A-2) Transport to Hospital
A-3) Extra Nourishment & Medicines
A-4) Funeral Expenses
A-5) Any other
B) Non- Pecuniary Includes
B-1) Loss of consortium (Only to spouse)
B-2) Loss of guidance to minor children
B-3) Loss of love and affection to aged parents
B-4) Loss of estate

Most of the times the petitions are taking years and years, thus purpose of the compensation are totally negated. Besides that, the way most of the compensation claims are drafted without following latest Supreme Court Judgments, is leading to violation of rights of the Victims are their legal heirs.

Me and Avinash Ila Thought that to share what we have learned in the last one week with all of you, so that It may add some value to your Compensation claims in unfortunate and undesirable motor vehicle Accidents.

While Deciding the Claim, A-1 is the most important factor and will have lion share.
The important factors while claiming compensation are
1. Income of Victim/Deceased at the time of Accident
2. Age of the Victim/Deceased
3. Dependents of the Victim/Deceased

If pay slip is present there is no problem, even otherwise the income can be taken as minimum 6000 per month or more based on the skill of the Victim or diseased.

For example if a person aged 35 years having regular monthly income of 10,000, having aged mother and father, wife, two minor kids (dependents are 5); on an unfortunate day, if he met with an accident and died on the spot.

As he is below 40 years, his income need to be increased by 50%; then it becomes 15000 [ 40 to 50 age- 30% increase as per; more than 50 years NO INCREASE---This is based on Supreme Court Judgement- Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Com Ltd [1] (2012) 6 SCC 421 and followed in Reshma Kumari Vs Madan Mohan [3] (2013) 9 SCC 65; Rajesh Vs Rajbir Singh [4] (2013) 9 SCC 54 ]

Now we have to deduct his own expenditure out of 15,000…Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs DTC; (2009) 6 SCC 121, has decided that 
2 to 3 Dependants  (1/3rd); 4 to 6  Dependants then  (1/4th) More than 6 then (1/5 th ); and if Batchelor half income should be deducted.

In this case 5 dependants, thus 1/4th should be reduced i.e 15000-(1/4)(15000)=11250
His Annual loss of Income to the dependants is 11250 * 12 =1,35,000

This annual amount needs to be multiplied with age appropriate multiplies as given by SC in Sarla Verma Vs DTC; (2009) 6 SCC 121; for the present case the multiplier is 16
The loss of income is 1,35,000*16=21,60,000 
TABLE-1 (Sarla Verma Vs DTC; (2009) 6 SCC 121)

Multiplier-Age-Group of Diseased/Injured
M-18  15 to 20 and 21 to 25
M-17  26-30
M-16  31-35
M-15  36-40
M-14  41-45
M-13  46-50
M-11  51-55
M-9          56-60
M-7          61-65
M-5          66-70

Now let’s move to A-2; A-3 and A-4; the entire medical bill and other bill for transportation, medicines, special nourishment as part of treatment should be added under these heads. If bills are present, it is easy for the Advocate to defend the case, even otherwise he can get amount based on general practice. If no bills, this amount can vary from case to case.

Then Moving on to calculate compensation under Non- Pecuniary head.
As per below Supreme Court cases
1. Sandhya Rani Debbarma vs The National Insurance Co. Ltd
2. Asha_Verman_vs_Maharaj_Singh (Mar 2015)
3. Kalpanaraj & Ors. v. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
They are as under 
Funeral expenses Rs. 25,000/- 
Loss of consortium (Only to spouse) Rs.1,00,000/-
Loss of guidance to minor children Rs.1,00,000/-
Loss of love and affection to aged parents Rs.1,00,000/-
Loss of estate Rs.1,00,000/-
Litigation costs (Court may or may not grant) Rs. 25,000/- 

Loss of Estate means Loss of estate includes compensation for pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of amenities, etc. of the deceased.
Now calculating the total compensation in the present case….
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Loss of earnings                                21,60,000
Transport to Hospital                             15,000
Extra Nourishment & Medicines             25,000
|Funeral expenses Rs. 25,000/-                     25,000
|Loss of consortium (Only to spouse)          1,00,000
|Loss of guidance to each minor children  2,00,000
|Loss of love and affection to each aged
parents                                                          2,00,000
|Loss of estate                                          1,00,000
|Litigation costs (Court Discretion)             25,000
   -------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Total 28,50,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Just imagine for a person having 10,000 incomes the claims can be as much as 28 Lakh. Though the compensation varies in each case based on the facts and circumstances, the above stated as general rules, which can’t be deviated.

Besides many Claim petitions are of very poor quality without having detailed calculation with supporting Supreme Court or High Court Cases Laws. Therefore the case will be dragged for years in the Tribunal.

Besides the same sort of calculation can also be done for injured and house wives with no outside income as well (U/s 163A)
The below are cases laws where the victim is housewife with no income:
 Lata Wadha and others v. State of Bihar and others (2001) 8 SCC 197
 InKemp and Kemp on Quantum of Damages, (Special Edition - 1986),
 Regan v. Williamson (1976) 1 W.L.R. 305,
 Mehmet v. Perry (1977) 2 All ER 52,
 Rajam v. M. Manikya Reddy 1989 ACJ 542 (Andhra Pradesh HC)
 National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Mahadevan, Minor Buvanadevi, Minor Venkatesh and
 Parameswaran (2009) ACJ 1373
 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shamsher Singh Manu-JK-0180- 2002, Jammu and Kashmir HC
Similarly for injured
 Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Another, (2011) 1 SCC 343
 Syed Sadiq and others v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, (2014) 2 SCC 735.

We elaborate injured compensation and House wives compensation details in future articles.

Thanking You
Avinash Ila, 3/3 LLB, Andhra University
Thandava Yogesh, 3/3 LLB, Andhra University

In case of any doubts or advises you can write to us at
Avinash3g@gmail.com or
Yogesh_Thandava@Yahoo.co.in