Central Information Commission
Mrshagun Malhotra vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. on 31 August, 2015
Central Information Commission
Room No.307, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi-110066
website-cic.gov.in
Appeal No. CIC/MP/A/2014/001649, CIC/MP/A/2014/001650, CIC/MP/A/2014/002496,
CIC/MP/A/2014/002497, CIC/MP/C/2014/000393, CIC/MP/C/2014/000394 CIC/MP/C/2014/000395,
CIC/MP/C/2014/000396, CIC/MP/A/2015/000246, CIC/MP/A/2015/000249, CIC/MP/A/2015/000250,
CIC/MP/C/2015/000020, CIC/MP/C/2015/000021 CIC/MP/C/2015/000022 , CIC/MP/C/2015/000023
CIC/MP/C/2015/000024.
Appellant/Complainant : Shri Shagun Malhotra, New Delhi.
Public Authority : The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Delhi/
Mumbai.
Date of Hearing : 17th August, 2015
Date of Decision : 31st August, 2015
Present :
Appellant/complainant : Present in person.
Respondent : Shri Renjit Gangadharan, DGM/FAA, Ms. Ranjana
Nigot, Asstt. Manager, Shri Nand Kishore & Shri
Nathi Singh.
Third Party : Shri Girish Bhardwaj, DSP, CBI, Ghaziabad.
ORDER
Case No. CIC/MP/A/2014/001649
1. The appellant Shri Shagun Malhotra submitted RTI application dated 19.03.2014 to the Central Public Information Officer, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (NIACL), Delhi seeking information on three points - certified copy of the letter dated 8th February 2010 from DGM, NIACL, Delhi to AGM, Central Bank of India, Agra requesting the bank to investigate the matter relating to the issuance of policy of M/s. S & S Covergers Pvt. Ltd; certified copy of the reply, if any, filed by the bank, with regard to the said letter at point 1 along with certified copies of all annexures and referred documents sent to NIACL by the bank; certified copy of the RTI filed by Shagun Malhotra on 22.05.2010.
1.2. The CPIO vide letter dated 04.04.2014 denied information under the provisions of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, on point 2 the appellant was informed that NIACL was not the holder of information; on point 3 the CPIO vide letter dated 1 11.4.2014 provided copy of the RTI application. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 15.05.2014 before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA had not adjudicated on appellant's first appeal.
1.3. Thereafter the appellant filed the present appeal before the Commission.
1.4. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant stated that he had a plastic manufacturing company in Delhi which caught fire in 2008. His bank, the Central Bank of India had got it insured and the insurance policy was issued to the bank. Therefore, he wanted the NIACL's letter asking for investigation in the matter and the bank's reply etc. The respondents had denied information on point 1 u/s 8(1)
(h) of the RTI Act on point 1. The fire insurance policy was got renewed by the Central Bank of India, from whom the appellant's company took loan. The appellant contacted the Central Bank of India who informed that the bank had informed the NIACL about the fire. The respondents stated that the FAA vide order dated 25.06.2014 directed the CPIO on point 2 to decide afresh after verifying from the departments concerned of Regional Office (RO), if any information was held there and whether the same could be disclosed or not within the provisions of the RTI Act. In compliance with directions of the FAA, the CPIO vide letter dated 23.07.2014 informed the appellant that letter dated 8.2.2010 from Central Bank of India could not be provided to the appellant as the matter was being investigated by the CBI. They further stated that the enquiry into the matter had been started before filing of the RTI application. All the documents had been taken by the CBI. They confirmed that all documents sought by the appellant were with the CBI. The respondents from the CBI stated that vide Notification No. 1/3/2011-IR dated 09.06.2011 of Government of India, the CBI had been put at Serial No., 23 of the Second Schedule to RTI Act, 2005 and as such CBI has been exempted from RTI Act, 2005. Since the matter was subjudice, the required information could be obtained from the Court of learned Special Judge CBI, Ghaziabad.
1.5. The Commission accepts the submissions of the respondents and holds that information as sought for by the appellant at point 1 and 2 could not be provided under the provisions of Section 8(1)((h) of the RTI Act, since the matter is subjudice before the learned Special Judge, CBI, Ghaziabad and any intervention by the 2 Commission at this juncture would be tantamount to disadvantage for one party against the other. The decision of respondents is upheld. The appeal is disposed of.
Case No. CIC/MP/A/2014/001650 & CIC/MP/A/2015/000249:
2. The appellant Shri Shagun Malhotra submitted RTI applications dated 20.05.2014 & 10.07.2014 to the Central Public Information Officer, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (NIACL), Delhi sought to know whether there was any correspondence between the NIACL and M/s. S.S. & S. Convergers Pvt. Ltd. before 06.08.2009 and sought the proof of such correspondence, if it existed. He further stated that he was the Director of the entity which had been insured by the insurance policy by NIACL Sahibabad Office under policy No. 321604/11/09/11/00000118 & 321604/11/00000042; proof of receiving the same; certified copies of all documents and policies dispatched to S & S Convergers Pvt. Ltd. by NIACL before 6.08.2009; if any such dispatch had been made before 6.9.2009, sought a certified copy of the dispatch of such document.
2.1. In response to RTI application dated 20.5.2014 the CPIO vide letter dated 22.05.2014 informed the appellant that the information as sought for by the appellant did not fall within the definition of information as defined u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act. In response to RTI application dated 10.07.2014, the CPIO vide letter dated 23.07.2014 informed the appellant that the appellant himself was the holder of the information. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 26.05.2014 & 31.08.2014 before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA vide order dated 14.10.2014 held that the information sought for by the appellant pertained to a matter that was subjudice would be barred from disclosure u/s 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act as it would impede the process of prosecution of offenders. Such information could be accessed through appropriate Court procedure. Moreover, the information sought was in the nature of cross examination of the CPIO on a pending litigation and falls outside the scope of the RTI Act.
2.2. Thereafter the appellant filed the present appeal before the Commission.
32.3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant stated that his entire record had been completely burnt in the fire that took place. He further stated that if this information was not available in the form as sought for, it could be provided to him in any form as held by the respondents. The respondents reiterated their stand and stated that the requested information could not be provided under the provisions of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act as the matter had not been concluded and was in the CBI Court.
2.4. The Commission accepts the submissions of the respondents and holds that any intervention in the matter which is pending before the CBI Court would act against the interest of one party to the advantage of the other. In this regard the High Court of Delhi in the matter of Cannon Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CESTAT observed that "Litigant in his own pending litigation can seek inspection of case record as of right, and there is no need to seek information through RTI.[para 3]". The decision of respondents is upheld. The appeal is disposed of.
Case No. CIC/MP/A/2014/002496 & CIC/MP/C/2014/000394:
3. Shri Shagun Malhotra had filed this appeal as well as complaint both dated 15.12.2014 before the Commission against the respondent New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (NIACL), Delhi with reference to his RTI application dated 25.06.2014.
3.1. The appellant submitted RTI application dated 25.06.2014 to the Central Public Information Officer, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (NIACL), Delhi seeking certified copy of all documents which were referred to in the underwriting of policy No. 321604/11/09/00000118 and also sought certified copy of the said policy on which Ms. Jyoti Siajhwani had underwritten Policy No. 321604/11/09/00000118.
3.2. The CPIO vide letter dated 16.07.2014 informed the appellant that the information as sought for by the appellant was not clear. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 08.08.2014 before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA vide order dated 22.09.2014 directed the CPIO to consider the application de novo after examining whether the desired information was held/not 4 held/ not required to be held/not held in material form. In case information was held, it would be open to him to invoke applicable section for denial.
3.3. Thereafter the appellant filed the present appeal/complaint before the Commission.
3.4. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant alleged that the documents as sought for were destroyed by the respondents. He also sought penalty proceedings against the CPIO for the delay caused in complying with directions of the FAA. The respondents stated that in compliance with directions of the FAA, the CPIO vide letter dated 04.02.2015 informed the appellant that the case was under
investigation by the CBI, Ghaziabad and providing the information would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. Hence the information was denied under the provisions of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. They further stated that the appellant had sought information about old policy and these papers were with the CBI.
3.5. The Commission accepts the submissions of the respondents and holds that the respondents had appropriately responded to the appellant/complainant. The decision of respondents is upheld. The Commission, however, observes that the CPIO had delayed in complying with the directions of the FAA. The CPIO is cautioned to be careful in future and adhere to the time limits as mandated under the RTI Act. The appeal/complaint is disposed of.
Case No. CIC/MP/A/2014/002497 & CIC/MP/C/2014/000396:
4. Shri Shagun Malhotra had filed this appeal as well as complaint both dated 14.12.2014 before the Commission against the respondent New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (NIACL), Delhi with reference to his RTI application dated 26.06.2014.
4.1 The appellant submitted RTI application dated 26.06.2014 to the Central Public Information Officer, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (NIACL), Delhi seeking information in respect of dispatch of burglary and fire insurance policy of M/s. S And 5 S. Convergers Pvt. Ltd for the period 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 and dispatch reminder to renew insurance to Central Bank of India or M/s. S. And S. Convergers Pvt. Ltd. for the letters insurance, during the period 1.1.2008, 31.12.2008 and 1.1.2009, 30.7.2009.
4.2. The CPIO vide letter dated 16.07.2014 informed the appellant that the information as sought was not held by them in material form. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 09.08.2014 before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA vide order dated 22.09.2014 held that the appellant's seven appeals had been disposed of by the FAA on the same claim. He further held that the information pertaining to a subjudice matter would be barred from disclosure u/s 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. Such information could be accessed by the appellant through appropriate court procedure.
4.3. Thereafter the appellant filed the present appeal/complaint before the Commission.
4.4. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant stated that NIACL should confirm that they do not possess the dispatch register pertaining to the policies issued. The respondents stated that the documents in question were delivered by hand to the Central Bank of India. They also confirmed that they had no record of dispatch of these documents. No policy document was sent to Central Bank of India by post, hence no entry was made in the dispatch register 4.5. The Commission accepts the submissions of the respondents and holds that the appellant had been appropriately replied to by the respondents. The decision of respondents is upheld. The appeal/complaint is disposed of.
Case No. CIC/MP/C/2014/000393:
5. The complainant Shri Shagun Malhotra submitted RTI application dated 08.09.2014 to the Central Public Information Officer, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (NIACL), Delhi seeking certified copy of those pages of the register being maintained by NIACL in accordance with Section 14(a) and 14(b) of the Insurance Act, 1938 6 which were relevant to S And S. Convergers Pvt. Ltd. in respect of policy No. 321604/11/00000118; certified copy of those pages of the register being maintained in accordance with Section 43 of the Insurance Act, 1938 relevant to Central Bank of India.
5.1 The CPIO vide letter dated 07.10.2014 informed the complainant with reference to point 1 that the information as sought for was earlier loaded in their GENISYS System. However, due to switching over to CWISS System, the information could not be retrieved; information of point 2 was provided to the complainant after applying severability as per Section 10 of the RTI Act and on point 3 the complainant was informed that the information was not held by them in material form.
5.2. The complainant did not avail of the first appellate channel u/s 19(1) of the RTI Act and approached the Commission u/s 18 of the RTI Act.
5.3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The complainant stated that information provided on point 3 was false and requested the Commission to penalize the CPIO u/s 20(1) of the RTI Act. The respondents reiterated that information as per available records and keeping in view the provisions of the RTI Act had been provided to the complainant.
5.4. The Commission holds that information, as per available records and keeping the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 in view, had been provided to the complainant. No action against the CPIO is called for. The complaint is closed.
Case No. CIC/MP/C/2014/000395:
6. The complainant Shri Shagun Malhotra submitted RTI application dated 07.09.2014 to the Central Public Information Officer, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (NIACL), Delhi seeking certified copy of the Memorandum of Articles and Articles of Association of NIACL; Audit Manual of NIACL; Underwriting Manual; Claim Manuals, Personnel Manual, Manual regarding Financial Authority, powers and limits, Manual 7 applicable to the job of a Cashier and complete Financial Standing Order 2012 of NIACL which became effective on 22.,8.2012 etc. through eight points.
6.1 The CPIO vide letter dated 01.10.2014 informed the complainant that desired information was available on the NIACL's website www.newindia.co.in and could retrieve same from their website.
6.2. The complainant did not avail of the first appellate channel u/s 19(1) of the RTI Act and approached the Commission u/s 18 of the RTI Act.
6.3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The complainant stated that the reply of the CPIO was incomplete, misleading and false, as a single website address of the NIACL was provided, which is just the home page of the Company and no information was available on the home page. Even the link provided does not have all the information that he desired. The CPIO had also caused delay in responding as the CPIO's letter was dispatched on 15th October 2014. He requested the Commission to initiate penalty proceedings u/s 20(1) of the RTI Act against the CPIO. The respondents submitted that information as sought on claims manual, underwriting manuals was not specific. The audit manual was available on their website. They reiterated that the information as sought for by the complainant was available in public domain and he was accordingly informed. The information on point 8 pertaining to financial standing order 2012 could not be provided, as it will affect their competitive position and would have a direct impact on their business. The respondents regretted the delay on the part of the CPIO in responding to the complainant.
6.4. The Commission holds that the complainant had been appropriately responded in the matter. The Commission observes hat there is a delay of about one week in responding to the RTI application, which is condoned, while cautioning the CPIO against any delays in future. The complaint is closed.
8Case No. CIC/MP/A/2015/000246 & CIC/MP/C/2015/000020:
7. Shri Shagun Malhotra had filed this appeal dated 11.01.2015 and complaint dated 10.01.2015 before the Commission against the respondent New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (NIACL), Delhi with reference to his RTI application dated 06.07.2014.
7.1. The appellant/complainant submitted RTI application dated 06.07.2014 to the Central Public Information Officer, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (NIACL), Delhi stated that Genesis system was still available and working along with cwiss system in Branch Manager's Office, Divisional Manager's office, IT Department of Regional office, Head Office and sought certified copy of an employment ID Proof or any record of employment of the underwriter of the insurance policy No. 321604/11/09/11/00000118. He further stated that the then Sr. Branch Manager Shri Nathi Singh had informed on oath to CBI Court, Ghaziabad that the said insurance policy was underwritten, accepted and agreed by one 'Ms. Jyoti Siajhwani'.
7.2. The CPIO vide letter dated 28.07.2014 informed the appellant that NIACL was not the holder of information as sought for by the appellant. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 30.08.2014 before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA vide order dated 28.10.2014 held that the information as sought for by the appellant pertained to a matter that was subjudice and barred from disclosure u/s 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. He further held that the employment related personal information of underwriter desired by the appellant attracts the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act in accordance with the Supreme Court ruling in G.R. Deshpande case. The FAA dismissed the appellant's appeal.
7.3. Thereafter the appellant filed the present appeal/complaint before the Commission.
7.4. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant stated that the respondents had given false information and its mentioned offices were capable of 9 running the Genesis System along with Cwiss System and thus, capable of providing the requested information. Therefore, an investigation under section 18(1)(E) of the RTI Act should be initiated. The respondents reiterated their stand and stated that they are not holder of information regarding the proof of ID of Ms. Jyoti Siajhwani.
7.5. The Commission accepts the submissions of the respondents and holds that the appellant/complainant had been appropriately replied to by the respondents. The decision of respondents is upheld. The appeal/complaint is disposed of.
Case No. CIC/MP/A/2015/000250:
8. The appellant Shri Shagun Malhotra submitted RTI application dated 07.08.2014 to the Central Public Information Officer, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (NIACL), Delhi sought certified copies of all such records, documents, memos, emails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models and data material held in electronic form which inform about the term 'incomplete underwriting' or its synonym.
8.1. The CPIO vide letter dated 02.09.2014 informed the appellant that the information sought was not available in material form as per record of the NIACL. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 10.09.2014 before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA vide order dated 13.10.2014 held that appellant's eight appeals on the same issue had already been disposed of by the FAA. The RTI Act is intended to deal with information existing and available on the record of the public authority in material form. Instead of seeking specific data/document/ facts, the appellant wanted to cross examine the CPIO with a sweeping interrogation casting burden of search and held that such indiscriminate demand fall beyond the scope of the RTI Act. The public authority was not expected to hold any information on an academic or legal or commercial concept (real or imaginary). The FAA dismissed appellant's first appeal.
8.2. Thereafter the appellant filed the present appeal before the Commission.
108.3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant stated that he had requested information on specific form allowed by Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The respondents reiterated their stand.
8.4. The Commission accepts the submissions of the respondents and holds that the appellant had been appropriately replied to by the respondents. The decision of respondents is upheld. The appeal is disposed of.
Case No. CIC/MP/C/2015/000021:
9. The complainant Shri Shagun Malhotra submitted RTI application dated 26.05.2014 to the Central Public Information Officer, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (NIACL), Delhi seeking certified copy of the letter dated 28.05.2009 from Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Sahibabad to Branch Manager, NIACL; certified copy of the letter dated 28.10.2009 from the Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Sahibabad to Branch Manager, NIACL, Sahibabad.
9.1 The CPIO vide letter dated 18.06.2014 informed the complainant that he was already holding the information and wanted the certification from the CPIO of the letter that he himself had, did not fall within the ambit of the RTI Act. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the complainant filed an appeal on 25.06.2014 before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA vide order dated 11.08.2014 held that the complainant's five appeals had been disposed of by the FAA on the same issue. Moreover, the information pertaining to a matter that was subjudice would be barred from disclosure u/s 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act as it would impede the process of prosecution of offenders. Such information could be accessed through appropriate Court procedure.
9.2. Thereafter the complainant filed the present complaint before the Commission.
9.3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The complainant stated that the said information was a correspondence between the Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Sahibabad and the Branch Manager, NIACL. The complainant was neither a party to the requested correspondence nor had been given its copy by either party.
11The public authority is liable to be investigated under section 18(1) (E) of the RTI Act for giving false information. The respondents stated that Central Bank of India, Sahibabad was the holder of information.
9.4 The Commission accepts the submissions of the respondents that the Central Bank of India was the holder of information. Moreover, the letter in question cannot be provided to the complainant under the provisions of Section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act as the matter is subjudice before the Special CBI, Ghaziabad. No intervention on the part of the Commission is called for. The complaint is closed.
Case No. CIC/MP/C/2015/000022:
10. The complainant Shri Shagun Malhotra submitted RTI application dated 13.05.2014 to the Central Public Information Officer, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (NIACL), Delhi seeking information in respect of the present status of the claim of fire loss filed against policy no. 321604/11/09/00000118 whether it was approved or rejected or pending due to the trial in CBI Court; certified copy of letter dated 10.08.2009 issued by Divisional Office to Director M/s S And S. Convergers Pvt. Ltd regarding the fire claim under the said policy; certified copy of letter dated 13.08.2009 issued by S And S. Convergers Pvt. Ltd. to Divisional Manager, NIACL; certified copy of MOU signed between Central Bank of India and NIACL; certified copy of the renewal of the MOU through five points.
10.1 The CPIO vide letter dated 19.05.2014 informed the complainant that on point-1 that the information as sought for did not constitute information as defined u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act; with reference to point 2 and 3 the complainant was informed that he was the holder of information and on point 4 and 5 the complainant was informed that Divisional office, Sahibabad was not holder of the information. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the complainant filed an appeal on 27.05.2014 before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA vide order dated 11.08.2014 held that the complainant's five appeals had been disposed of by the FAA on the same issue. Moreover, the information pertaining to a subjudice matter would be barred from disclosure u/s 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act as it would impede the process of prosecution of offenders. Such information could be accessed through appropriate Court procedure.
1210.2. Thereafter the complainant filed the present complaint before the Commission.
10.3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The complainant stated that the CPIO had denied information on point 4 and 5 pertaining to the MOU signed between Central Bank of India and NIACL and renewal of the said MOU. The respondents stated that Divisional Office is the holder of copy of the MOU, which could not be provided to the complainant as the same is held by the respondents in fiduciary relationship.
10.4 The Commission accepts the submissions of the respondents and holds that respondents had appropriately replied to the complainant. The complaint is closed.
Case No. CIC/MP/C/2015/000023:
11. The complainant Shri Shagun Malhotra submitted RTI application dated 08.08.2014 to the Central Public Information Officer, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (NIACL), Delhi stated that while underwriting the Fire Policy No. 321604/11/00000118, the underwriter referred to a copy/original of previous year's policy no. 321604/11/08/00000042 and wrote comments/requirements on the same along with writing agreed/accepted/OK on it, in a manner to signify the completion of underwriting. It had come to the knowledge that NIACL Sahibabad Branch had destroyed this document and sought certified copy of the policy no. 321604/11/08/00000042 or any such renewal notice, used by the underwriter for underwriting policy No. 321604/11/00000118, on which the concerned underwriter may have written remarks and also written agreed/accepted/OK to signify competition of underwriting.
11.1 The CPIO vide letter dated 01.09.2014 informed the appellant that he was holding the information and wanted the certification of the information which did not fall within the ambit of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the complainant filed an appeal on 11.09.2014 before the first appellate authority (FAA).
13The FAA vide order dated 14.10.2014 held that the complainant's eight appeals on the same claim and related issue had been disposed of by the FAA. Moreover, the information pertaining to a subjudice matter would be barred from disclosure u/s 8(1)
(h) of the RTI Act as it would impede the process of prosecution of offenders. Such information could be accessed through appropriate Court procedure. He further added that the applicant was neither entitled to ask question/query nor seek certification of information in his possession or originating from him. The CPIO carries no obligation to search and confirm documents suiting the conditions laid down by on information seeker but to decide disclosure of identified information held by him. The information request being in the nature of cross-examination of CPIO on the pending litigation falls outside the scope of the RTI Act.
11.2. Thereafter the complainant filed the present complaint before the Commission.
11.3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The complainant stated that he had a suspicion that the respondents had malafidely destroyed the documents as sought for. The CPIO's reluctance to disclose the particular information supports the suspicion. The respondents stated that the policy in question was available with the Central Bank of India and the bank had sent copy of the policy to the insured.
11.4 The Commission accepts the submissions of the respondents and holds that respondents had appropriately replied to the complainant. The complaint is closed.
Case No. CIC/MP/C/2015/000024:
12. The complainant Shri Shagun Malhotra submitted RTI application dated 21.05.2014 to the Central Public Information Officer, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (NIACL), Delhi seeking information certified copies of documents or opinions or circulars or orders or papers or data material held in electronic form, which inform about the duties and responsibilities of an underwriter; which inform about incomplete underwriting, which inform about acceptance of risk by the underwriter; which inform about the procedure or practice followed by underwriting; certified 14 copies of such documents, opinions, circulars or orders or data held in electronic form, which inform about the meaning of OK or Accepted or Agreed, which inform about the duties and responsibilities of Cashier; which inform about the powers of a cashier, certified copy of an employment ID proof or any record of employment of the underwriter of Insurance Policy No. 321604/11/09/11/00000118 through nine points.
12.1. The CPIO vide letter dated 05.05.2014 informed the complainant that the information as sought for was not available with them in material form. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the complainant filed an appeal on 24.06.2014 before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA vide order dated 11.08.2014 held that the appellant's four appeals had been disposed of by the FAA on the same claim. He further held that the information pertaining to a matter that was subjudice, would affect their position adversely. Besides, such information could be accessed by the appellant through appropriate court procedure.
12.2. Thereafter the complainant filed the present complaint before the Commission.
12.3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The complainant stated that the information as requested at points 1 to 6 was available with the public authority in its "Underwriting Manual". This manual contains all the powers, duties, responsibilities, risk acceptance and procedure followed by the 'Underwriter' employed by the public authority. The existence of such manual had been mentioned on the website of the public authority. Therefore, denial of such information in material form was false and attracts the provisions of Section 18(1) (E) of the RTI Act. The respondents reiterated that they have not documented the cashier's duties.
12.4. The Commission observes that there is merit in the contention putforth by the complainant that Underwriting Manual was available on NIACL's website. The CPIO had replied to the complainant without application of mind. It also does not appear to be concerning that the cashier's duties are not documented. However, the FAA had claimed exemption under the provisions of Section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act. The CPIO is warned against considering the RTI applications in casual manner and 15 responding to the complainant without going through the facts/records. The decision of the FAA is upheld. The complaint is closed.
13. The Commission observes that the appellant had filed sixteen appeals/complaints on the same issue related to his fire insurance claim, which is a subjudice matter before the Special Judge, CBI, Ghaziabad. On most of queries the information was denied by the respondents under the provisions of Section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act and the appellant was advised that the same could be accessed by him through appropriate court procedure. In spite of this the appellant chooses to file numerous RTI applications. The Commission advises the appellant to use the cherished right to the information diligently with full responsibility in future so as not to overburden the public authority by seeking the similar information which impinges on the scarce resources of the public authority.
(Manjula Prasher) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(T.K. Mohapatra) Dy. Secretary & Dy. Registrar Ph. No. 011-26105027 Address of the parties:
Shri Shagun Malhotra, BG-7/82, Ground Floor, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi-110063.
The Central Public Information Officer, The New India Assurance Company Ltd., 10th Floor, Core 1, Scope Minar, Laxmi Nagar District Centre, Delhi-110092.
The DGM /FAA The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Regd. & HO: New India Assurance Building, 87, M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai400001.16