Central Information Commission
Ankit Rastogi vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. on 9 February, 2018
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 305, 3rd Floor, CIC Bhavan, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka,
New Delhi-110067, website:cic.gov.in
Appeal No.:-CIC/UIICL/A/2017/191205+ CIC/UIICL/A/2017/191207-BJ
Appellant : Mr. Ankit Rastogi
Respondent : CPIO,
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Head Office, 24, Whites Road,
Chennai-600014
CPIO
Regional Office, 899/01, 1st Floor, Ratna
Complex, Hotel Ratan Place, Kaulagarh Road,
Dehradun-248001
Date of Hearing : 08.02.2018
Date of Decision : 09.02.2018
Date of filing of RTI application 25.07.2016
CPIO's response 26.08.2016
Date of filing the First Appeal 02.09.2016
First Appellate Authority's response 05.10.2016
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 15.12.2016
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 04 points regarding the extant guidelines of the Insurance Company in respect of providing tours and Laptops to their star Agents, the details of the Officers of the Public Authority who accompanied such star agents on tours from the Year 2011-12 till 2015-16, the details of the fund from which such expenditure was incurred on the tours of the said officers and issues related thereto.
The CPIO vide its letter dated 26.08.2016 requested the Appellant to submit a sum of Rs.70/- for availing the requisite information, within a period of 15 days. Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA vide its order dated 05.10.2016 provided a point wise reply to the Appellant enclosing the relevant information. HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. Ashwini Kumar Kasana, AO, Dehradun through VC;
The Appellant and the Respondent (Chennai) remained absent during the hearing, despite prior intimation. Mr. Yogendra Singh, Network Engineer Page 1 of 2 NIC Studio at Moradabad and Mr. Anand Raju Network Engineer NIC studio at Chennai confirmed their absence. In its reply, the Respondent submitted that point-wise information had already been provided by the CPIO/FAA. A detailed reply had thereafter been sent to the Appellant explaining the whole policy as also enclosing a copy of the order issued by the Commission in a similar matter vide decision no. CIC/UIICL/A/2016/307332-BJ dated 01.08.2017. It was therefore articulated that essentially the Appellant had been raising his grievance from time to time that needed to be taken up at an appropriate forum.
The Respondent vide his written submission dated 31.01.2018 submitted that all the available information had been provided free of cost to the Appellant and there was no delay on their part. It was also informed that the Appellant had approached the Commission in File no. CIC/UIICL/A/2016/307332-BJ dated 27.06.2017 (final order 01.08.2017) wherein a decision was pronounced on similar issues. It was also contended that the Appellant had raised a hypothetical question through his RTI application. It was also informed that the Appellant had not approached the concerned Branch, Moradabad which came under the Divisional Office, Moradabad for his grievance redressal. Moreover, after the satisfactory response by the CPIO in reply to the two RTI applications filed by the Appellant, new questions had been raised in the First Appeal. Explaining the background of the case, the Respondent submitted that all the available information held on record regarding the agent tours from F.Y 2011-12 to 2015-2016 including the circular applicable to the facility, laptop etc and the details of the officers/employees accompanied with the tours had also been provided to the Appellant. Therefore, it was pleaded that there was no question of giving incorrect, incomplete or misleading information to the Appellant.
The Appellant was not present to contest the submission of the Respondent or to substantiate his claims further.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent and in the light of aforesaid decision of the Commission, no further intervention is required in the matter. For redressal of his grievance, the Appellant is advised to approach an appropriate forum.
The Appeals stand disposed accordingly.
(Bimal Julka) Information Commissioner Authenticated True Copy:
(K.L.Das) Deputy Registrar Page 2 of 2