Central Information Commission
Praveen Rastogi vs The New India Assurance Company Ltd. on 25 August, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/NIACL/A/2024/107846 &
CIC/NIACL/A/2024/647711
Praveen Rastogi .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
The New India Assurance
Company Ltd., Regional Office,
430, 2nd Floor, Niranjanpur,
Saharanpur Road, Deharadun - 248171 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 06.08.2025
Date of Decision : 22.08.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
The above-mentioned second appeals are clubbed together as the Appellant
is common, subject-matter is similar in nature and hence are being disposed
of through a common order.
1. CIC/NIACL/A/2024/107846
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 24.11.2023
CPIO replied on : 28.12.2023
First appeal filed on : 10.01.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 22.02.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 07.03.2024
Page 1 of 9
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24.11.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:
"I, Praveen Rastogi, son of Late Radheyshyam Rastogi, resident of M- 73B, First Floor, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi 110017 Director of M/s. Praveen Aroma Pvt. Ltd., Village: Kurkawali, Hasanpur Road, Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh 244302 Mobile No. 09690001133 wish to seek information, under the RTI Act, 2005 from the New India Assurance Company Limited.
I here by, declare that I am a Citizen of India and the information sought in this application will be used in the best of the Public Interest. I further assure you that, I shall not allow/cause to use/Pass/share/display/or circulate the information received in any case and under any circumstances, with any person or in any manner which would be detrimental to the Unity /Sovereignty or against the Interest of India.
1. The information needed is in the form of --- Documents.
2. The Information sought pertains to your Regional Office RO-340000, Dehradun.
3. The Required Information is for the period From 1.10.2019 till date
4. The information sought is related to the Policy No.- 34110111180100000063.
5. The information sought is related to the Claim No- 34110111190190000002.
6. The information sought is related to --- Myself
7. The particular / details of Information/Documents asked for is given below: -
1. Complete correspondence between NIA (All the concerned /dealing offices) and appointed surveyor Mr. Rohit Kumar & Co., Truth Lab (Cause Finding Agency), Jain Ambavat Chartered Accountants LLP (Stocks Forensic Auditor), Investigator, Mr. Nilesh Ukunde (M/s Forensic Fire and Cyber Investigators), The Complainant Mr. Sanjeev Kumar and PMO Grievance Cell, Police Authorities any other Expert or Agency and vice versa.
2. Copies of all Reports issued by I. The appointed Surveyors Mr. Rohit Kumar & Co.Page 2 of 9
II. Truth Lab (Cause Finding Agency) III. Jain Ambavat Chartered Accountants LLP (Stocks Forensic Auditor) IV. Mr. Nilesh Ukunde, Investigator (M/s Forensic Fire and Cyber Investigators)
3. Complete internal correspondence and documents including all the footnotes of all the officer in-charge pertaining to this claim along with processing note.
4. Complete correspondence between various Agencies appointed by NIA related to the claim"
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 28.12.2023 stating as under:
"यह आपके प दनांक 24/11/2023 जो क हम 30/11/2023 को ा त हुआ के संदभ म है ।
उपरो त प म आपके वारा जो जानकार याँ/"ववरण मांगी गई ह'। वह हमारे स(बि+धत "वभाग (दे हरादन ू नॉन सूट र जनल लैम सटर-340001) के वारा सूचनाएँ/जानकार याँ दान गई है िजसक3 4त हम आपको े"षत कर रहे है ।"
3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.01.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 22.02.2024, held as under:
"REPLY 1- Disclosure of this Information is exempted under sec 8 (d) which states that-"Information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information"
REPLY 2- Disclosure of this Information is exempted under sec 8 (h) which states that "Information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders
2. Copies of all Reports issued by
1. The appointed Surveyors Mr. Rohit Kumar & Co. Report was already shared vide our reply dated. 28/12/2023 Page 3 of 9
2. Truth Lab (Cause Finding Agency)- Disclosure of this Information is exempted under sec 8 (d)
3. Jain Ambavat Chartered Accountants LLP (Stocks Forensic Auditor)- Disclosure of this Information is exempted under sec 8 (d)
4. Mr. Nilesh Ukende, Investigator (M/S Forensic Fire and Cyber Investigators)-Disclosure of this Information is exempted under sec 8 (d) REPLY 3- Disclosure of this Information is exempted under sec 8 (d) which states that-"Information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information"
REPLY 4- Disclosure of this Information is exempted under sec 8 (h) which states that "Information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders""
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
2. CIC/NIACL/A/2024/647711 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 29.08.2024 CPIO replied on : 10.09.2024 First appeal filed on : 24.09.2024 First Appellate Authority's order : 04.10.2024 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 28.10.2024 Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 29.08.2024 (offline) seeking the following information:
"I, Praveen Rastogi, son of Late Radheyshyam Rastogi resident of., Village: Kurkawali, Hasanpur Road, Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh-244302 Mobile No. 09690001133 wish to seek information, under the RTI Act, 2005 from the New India Assurance Company Limited.
I, here by, declare that I am a Citizen of India and the information sought in this application will be used in the best of the Public Interest. I further Page 4 of 9 assure you that, I shall not allow/ cause to use/ Pass/share/display/or circulate the information received in any case and under any circumstances, with any person or in any manner which would be detrimental to the Unity /Sovereignty or against the Interest of India.
1. The information needed is in the form of --- Documents.
2. The Information sought pertains to your Regional Office RO-340000, Dehradun.
3. The Required Information is for the period - From 1.10.2019 till date
4. The information sought is related to the Policy No.- 34110111180100000063.
5. The information sought is related to the Claim No- 34110111190190000002.
6. The information sought is related to --- Myself
7. The particular/details of Information/Documents asked for is given below: -
1. Complete correspondence between NIA (All the concerned /dealing offices) and appointed surveyor Rohit Kumar & Co, Agencies namely Truth Lab, Jain Ambavat Chartered Accountants LLP, The Investigator Mr. Nilesh Ukunde and The Complainant Mr Sanjeev Kumar
2. Copies of Reports issued by I. Truth Lab (Cause Finding Agency) II. Jain Ambavat Chartered Accountants LLP (Stocks Forensic Auditor)
3. Complete internal correspondence and documents including all the footnotes of all the officer in-charge pertaining to this claim along with processing note."
2. The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 10.09.2024 stating as under:
"1. REPLY- Cannot be disclosed as per section 8(1)(d) of RTI act 2005.
2. Copies of all Reports issued by
1. Truth Lab (Cause Finding Agency)- Attached
2. Jain Ambavat Chartered Accountants LLP (Stocks Forensic Auditor)- Attached
3. REPLY- Cannot be disclosed as per section 8(1)(d) of RTI act 2005."Page 5 of 9
4. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 24.09.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 04.10.2024, held as under:
"In the present appeal, Appellant complaints for non satisfactory reply from CPIO, DEHRADUN RO to his application dated 29.08.2024.
We have reviewed the queries once again.
Please find below point wise reply to the application:-
1. Complete correspondence between NIA (All the concerned/dealing offices) and appointed surveyor Mr. Rohit Kumar & CO., Truth Lab (Cause finding agency), Jain Ambavat Chartered Accountants LLP (Stocks Forensic Auditor), Investigator, Mr. Nilesh Ukunde (M/s Forensic Fire and Cyber Investigators) and The Complainant Mr.Sanjeev Kumar REPLY- Disclosure of this Information is exempted under sec 8 (1) (g) which states that-information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;
2. Complete internal correspondence and documents including all the footnotes of all the officer in charge pertaining to this claim along with processing note.
REPLY-Disclosure of this Information is exempted under sec 8 (1)(g) which states that-(g) information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security"
5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
6. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on Respondent while filing the same in CIC is not available on record.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Shri Sudhir Bhalla, representative of the Appellant attended the hearing in person.Page 6 of 9
Respondent: Shri Nishant Uniyal, CPIO-cum-Manager, attended the hearing through VC.
7. The representative of the Appellant stated that the Respondent has not provided the relevant information as sought in point No. 1 of the RTI application. While explaining the brief background of the case, he apprised the Bench of the fact that he is seeking such information due to wrongful repudiation of claim amounting to Rs. 12.87 crores by the Respondent Public Authority. He added that there was total six surveyor reports out of which five reports came in their favour and only one report was not in their favour and the Respondent conveniently relied on that one report and repudiated their claim after five years.
8. The Respondent submitted that the Appellant has filed two similar RTI Application dated 24.11.2023 and 29.08.2024. The CPIO in the initial RTI Application dated 24.11.2023 has denied the information to the Appellant under Section 8 1 (d) of the RTI Act but subsequently in another RTI Application dated 29.08.24 has provided the relevant information qua point No. 2 of the RTI Application. He added that final surveyor report relied upon by the department has already been shared with the Appellant and moreover, the grounds on which the claim has been repudiated has been informed to the Appellant through a repudiation letter. The Appellant has already availed a judicial remedy in the instant matter wherein he has challenged the action of the department, and the case is sub-judice in appropriate court of law. The information with respect to correspondences between NIA and appointed surveyor, Agencies and the Investigator along with internal correspondences is of no consequence in view of the two documents shared with the Appellant i.e. reports of cause finding agency and Stocks Forensic Auditor.
9. A written submission has been received from Shri Nishant Uniyal, CPIO-
cum-Manager, vide letter dated 04.08.2025, a copy of which has been sent to the Appellant and the same has been taken on record. The relevant extract of the same is as under:
"Although in reply of another RTI dated 29/08/2024, we have already provided the complainant with the Copies of Reports issued by:Page 7 of 9
* Truth Lab(cause finding agencies) (received by the complainant) * Jain Ambavat Chartered Accountants LLP (Stocks forensic Auditor) (received by the complainant) (confirmation by the letter of the complainant dated 24/09/2024 (attached) Therefore, we hereby stand with our earlier decision and cannot reveal any further information sought in this RTI application because the same falls within the exemptions stated in sec 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act, 2005"
Decision:
10. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observes that the Appellant has filed two similar RTI Application dated 24.11.2023 and 29.08.2024 seeking same piece of information from the Respondent. The CPIO in the initial RTI Application dated 24.11.2023 has blanketly denied the information to the Appellant under Section 8 1 (d) of the RTI Act which is wrong and accordingly the averred reply dated 22.02.2024 is set aside. The Commission further observes that subsequently the Respondent in another similar RTI Application dated 29.08.2024 has provided the relevant information qua point No. 2 of the RTI Application with the Appellant. The final surveyor report relied upon by the Respondent Public Authority has already been shared with the Appellant and the grounds on which the claim has been repudiated has been informed to the Appellant through a repudiation letter by the Respondent. The Appellant is already availing an alternate efficacious remedy in the instant matter wherein he has challenged the action of the Respondent in an appropriate court of law, the Commission finds no intervention in the instant matters.
The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Page 8 of 9 Copy To:
The FAA, The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Regional Office, 430, 2nd Floor, Niranjanpur, Saharanpur Road, Deharadun - 248171 Page 9 of 9 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)