Central Information Commission
G. Naga Sanjeeva Rao vs The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. on 6 August, 2021
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Rote epee eine PSeT aS TERY, Ray Kiara Garniearva Ra womb Qo / ; Myr. G. Naga Saniceva Rao . SYPSTepay/ Appellant Lanted, Regiona | Office. Vv ishakhapatnam, A8id-111, 2™ Floor Sri Nitya Complex, Opp. Karnataka Bank, Rarma Talkies Road, CBM Compound, Vishakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh-530013 Relevant dates emerging from the appeal- RYE 2 29-07-2019 FA 5 30-09-2019 SA popnet 1-2019 peed & 'eae CPE : Not on Record FAO + Not on Record Hearing: 12-07-2021 GORDER ai/Respondent
i. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 200% (RTL Act} before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO}The Oriental! Insurance Company Limited, Andhra Pradesh. The 4 appel on 8 points including inter alia:
lant seeking information 1s "G) Who is responsible person to accept the Insurance Propasal brought by the agent';
Gi} After accepting the duly Aled in proposal who is responsible for under writing the same im to the Infias System" ete.
2. As the CPIO had not provided the requested information, the apps nat bled the first appeal dated 30.09.2019 requesting ¢ provided to him.
te :
He filed a second appeal u/Secth init enformati
3. The respondent admitted that ney faye not submitted an ny ep ply fo the the S Appellant till date. However, the Res spondent orally submitted thar th seeking clarifications and therefore the infarmatian as sought by the / Appellant 18 denied ag per the provisions of the RT! act, 2605.
&, The Comunission, afler hearing the ee ions of bath the parties and after perusal of records, observes that the Appellant has sought clarifications on pout Neo. d to 7 in his RTT Application.
7. In this regard, the Commission refers to the definition of Gnfermation' u/s Section 20) of the RTT Act, 2605 which is reproduced below:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, menios, e-mails, opinions, advices, press eases circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form. and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
8. The Commission now refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court mn CBSE and Anr. Vs Aditya Bandhopadhyay and Ors, 201) By SCC 497, wherein it has been held that as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, the respondent is not required to provide any clarification/advice or opinion to the applicant a
9. In View of the above, the Commission observes that the information as soughi by the Appellant is clarificatory in nature and therefore, as per the provisions of the RTT Act, 2005, it need not be provided to the appellant cept prcerenetel® oe LE 4 Be, co 5 i eee recroterestttthe be, Yta he 6 fe er dott, epee wee wn ae yoo bai oe o Zs ty LA read eb al a we ee qs z wn aad hen phe, et won fons oad = nt Sapien Ba we Bo meek tt centre tere ae, nam, + & ary LL ishakhapatnam, 4814-111, e shakhapa r co we 'ake ao Pe ie ned a "
os o, mn ' om Ee) co me mm A , ay ; Sows
5. £ ES & os Cd "Sot ox wa oa lots, CO a3 wen, mS ag oe OR" Fe, % im a ee my 'eb ett ¢ 3 * 4 rs AY wy Reeee, mh w mo ta fl eg got a & 2gE 242 § roe ie ve a 4 OS is et 03 O * tewd, tone é * "
es re ha poo, Oot ae ma tht lens bees t wy oo noe etd, CG fy LC. . it mn "a ks ee te a oo om ; beep ae a5 8 Tf SH Et a mF cee phe . tent Seo! fd poe oc :
Sa bene Bs ates, Qo oe « os a ig 4 he bey ob x ne f wan a -
Ze eg Segeegeh FZ A pe oo SE has Bom & id oh . Gp ber eb oni Ze ee (oe Sat tort pie ws fe maf o (5 Sod GE om mt 're mer i 5 an " ed Seen : -
& ee mA eB wi may "By Me ce "a . woe Shor, vl a Be OE ans "ead - fo DS a fy a ere i a"
me EE on GP 4 Cad bw te pa OD Le a a Ex ea og ae aa goer an MRE red Gor GH top ww Cs ra. Toepenne, "ned ee oe) eee wo ony Les P aE OQ fed ~y a went od