Central Information Commission
J Amutha vs Agriculture Insurance Company Of India ... on 4 September, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File Nos: CIC/AGICI/A/2024/106793 and CIC/AGICI/A/2024/127139
J Amutha .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Agriculture Insurance Co. Ltd,
Regional Office, 1st Floor,
Andhra Insurance Building,
Old No. 156, Thambu Chetty
Street, Parrys Croner, Chennai - 600001 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 12.08.2025
Date of Decision : 04.09.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
The above-mentioned Second Appeals are clubbed together as the Appellant is
common and the subject-matter is similar in nature and hence are being
disposed of through a common order.
File No: CIC/AGICI/A/2024/106793
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 06.12.2023
CPIO replied on : 05.01.2024
Page 1 of 11
First appeal filed on : 19.01.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 13.02.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 26.02.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 06.12.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:
"Ref:- Agriculture Insurance company letter 1180/23 Needed Information No 1. Is Smt. Nivetha returned the amount Rs 19853.93 to Agriculture Insurance Company, details needed.
No 2. If Nivetha not returned the amount Rs 19853.93 any criminal action taken against Nivetha by Agriculture Insurance Company, details needed.
No 3. If criminal action not taken against Smt. Nivetha by Agriculture Insurance Company, reason needed for it."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 05.01.2024 stating as under:
"This is with reference to RTI application dated_06/12/2023 received by us on 08/12/2023. In this regard we would like to inform you that the requested information has been already communicated to you vide Letter Ref No 1181/RTI Application/2022-23 dated 31/03/2023. Claim Recovery proceedings have been initiated against Ms. Nivedha as directed by Director of Agriculture, Chennai."
3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.01.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 13.02.2024, held as under:
"This is in reference to the RTI First Appeal dated 19/01/2024 against RTI Application dated 06/12/2023, filed by you under Right to Information Act, 2005. In this regard, it is hereby informed.
1. Till date the amount has not been refunded by Ms. Nivedha.
2. Criminal action is not taken against Ms. Nivedha.Page 2 of 11
3. As per PMFBY Scheme provisions, tenant farmers are also eligible to be covered under the Scheme.
Accordingly, the insurance application of Mrs. Nivedha has been considered for insurance based on the Adangal document issued by the competent authority and claims have been paid as per Scheme provision. In case the complainant finds any person has insured crop cultivated in his land using fabricated/forged document, he may personally initiate legal proceedings against such wrong doer."
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
File No. CIC/AGICI/A/2024/127139 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 03.07.2024 CPIO replied on : 11.07.2024 First appeal filed on : 18.07.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 08.08.2024 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 17.08.2024 Information sought:
5. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 03.07.2024 (offline) seeking the following information:
"I send a complaint against Mrs. NIVETHA who using forget adangal certificate for survey No: 226/4 1.05 Hector land in PMFBY Rabi 2019- 2020 (Pasali 1429) and received fraudulent claim amount.
Agriculture Insurance company regional Manager enquired and received a report from Agriculture Director and closed my complaint.
Agricultural department not give adangal certificate. Agriculture department not maintain adangal certificate particulars. Agriculture director report for my complaint as per Pa Kapi 4/136682/2022 dated 19.03.2023 is based on crop insurance particulars It is not correct way to find out truth.Page 3 of 11
Village Administrative Officer of revenue department give adangal certificate. Adangal Certificate particulars is maintain in VAO office and Taluk office records. Kilvelur VAO office and Kilvelur Taluk Office adangal records particulars verify and then take final decision is correct way to find out truth for my complaint.
My Complaint regarding two information needed noted below Rs. 10/- postal order enclosed here with :-
ITEM NO: 1: Is Mrs. Nivetha adangal certificate verified with Kilvelur VAO office and Kilvelur Taluk Office records by Agriculture Department or Agriculture Insurance company detail information needed.
ITEM NO:2: If Mrs. Nivetha adangal certificate verified with Kilvelur VAO office and Kilvelur Taluk Office records by Agriculture Department or Agriculture Insurance company a copy of Verification report needed."
6. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 11.07.2024 stating as under:
"This is with reference to your letter dated 03/07/2024 received by us on 05/07/2024. In this regard we would like to inform you that you the Agriculture department has verified and confirmed us Mrs. Nivedha is the tenant farmer and she cultivated in survey number 226/4 in Kilvelur village during Rabi 2019-20 season. We request you to kindly contact the concerned State Government departments for any further information in this regard."
7. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.07.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 08.08.2024, held as under:
"This is in reference to the RTI Appeal dated 18/07/2024 against RTI Application dated 03/07/2024 received on 23/07/2024 in Head Office, filed by you under Right to Information Act, 2005. In this regard, it is hereby informed:
Our CPIO, Regional Office Chennai vide its Reply dated 11/07/2024 has already provided the information sought by you in this Appeal. The copy of reply dated 11/07/2024 is enclosed herewith.
For verification report and other related information in this regard, you may contact the concerned State Government departments.Page 4 of 11
We would like to reiterate that we have already shared all the available information/documents to you on this matter."
8. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present with her husband Shri Jagarnathan appeared through video conference.
Respondent: Ms. J. Logeswari Chief Manager appeared through video conference.
9. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 26.02.2024 is not available on record. The Respondent confirmed non-service.
10. The Appellant inter alia submitted that information sought was not provided by the Respondent till the date of hearing.
11. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had filed details written submissions dated Nil explaining complete facts of the cases, contents of the same (case wise) are reproduced below.
The contents of the written submission filed in the case file No. CIC/AGICI/A/2024/106793 are reproduced as under:
"Background of the RTI Application: The Appellant vide his offline RTI application dated 06/12/2023 received by CPIO, Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd, Chennai on 08/12/2023 has asked for the following information,
1. Is Mrs. Nivedha returned the amount Rs.19,853.93 to AIC details needed
2. If Mrs. Nivedha not returned the amount any criminal action taken against Mrs. Nivedha by AIC details needed
3. If criminal action not taken by AIC, reason needed for it Page 5 of 11 CPIO reply: The information sought in the original application was provided to the applicant vide Letter ref no: 2051/RTI Application/2022-23 dated 05/01/2024 and the same is reiterated below, "The requested information already provided vide Letter ref no: 1181/RTI Application/2022-23 dated 31/03/2023dated 21.03.2023. Claim recovery proceedings have been initiated against Mrs. Nivedha as directed by DoA, Chennai."
Meanwhile the Agriculture Insurance Company of India Limited, Regional Office, Chennai has closed the complaint raised by the appellant and the same was communicated to the appellant vide letter ref no: 2151/2023-24 dated 07/02/2024 and the same is reiterated below, "This is with reference to your complaint raised against Mrs. Nivedha for receiving claim by fraudulent enrolment. In this regard we would like to inform you that till date we have not received any reply from the farmer, and we are unable to trace the farmer. Moreover, when our Field staff has personally gone to Kilvelur village to enquire whereabouts of the farmer it is understood that you and Mrs. Nivedha A are relatives, and you were unable to give contact details of your relative to proceed further. As per PMFBY Scheme provisions, tenant farmers are also eligible to be covered under the Scheme. Accordingly, the insurance application of Mrs. Nivedha has been considered for insurance based on the Adangal document issued by the competent authority and claims have been paid as per Scheme provision. If you have any grievance/dispute against the person who has insured crops cultivated in your land, you may initiate appropriate legal proceedings against such Wrong doer."
First Appeal: The applicant has filed first appeal before First Appellate Authority vide letter dated 19/01/2024 against the above information provided by the CPIO. The FAA has received the appeal on 06/12/2023 and has given the below reply vide letter ref no: AIC/HO/Appeal/3797/2526 dated 13/02/2024,
1. Till date the amount has not been refunded by Ms. Nivedha.
2. Criminal action is not taken against Ms. Nivedha.
3. As per PMFBY Scheme provisions, tenant farmers are also eligible to be covered under the Scheme. Accordingly, the insurance application of Mrs. Nivedha has been considered for insurance based on the Adangal document issued by the competent authority and claims have been paid as per Page 6 of 11 Scheme provision. If you have any grievance/dispute against the person who have insured crops cultivated in your land, you may initiate appropriate legal proceedings against such Wrong doer.
Grounds for Second Appeal: It is respectfully submitted that the information sought and available with this respondent has already been shared with the appellant within the time limit prescribed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The appellant has filed this second appeal on the ground that the information provided is not correct and have requested for below information,
1. Is the information noted in Chennai AIC letter ref 1180/23 dated 12.05.2023 true or false information needed.
2. Adangal document filed by Ms. Nivedha in PMFBY on 2019-20 Rabi season Paddy-II in R.S 226/4 1.05 Ha land. Copy of the above.
Submission of this respondent: This respondent respectfully submits that the appellant has never sought the above information from this respondent. Further this respondent would like to bring to the kind notice of this Hon'ble Commission that the appellant has filed several RTI applications before this respondent regarding a complaint alleging fraudulent insurance of the appellant's land by Mrs. Nivedha during the 2019-20 Rabi season. The respondent has diligently provided all available information in response to these applications within the time frame stipulated under the RTI Act.
This respondent respectfully reiterate that this respondent has acted in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, in providing the information sought by the appellant. The CPIO & FAA has furnished the available information and also directed the appellant to contact the concerned State Government departments for further information.
In light of the above, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Commission may be pleased to:
• Dismiss the present appeal as devoid of merit, • Recognize that the respondent has complied with all obligations under the RTI Act, and • Uphold the actions of the CPIO and the First Appellate Authority as being in accordance with the provisions of the Act."Page 7 of 11
The contents of the written submission filed in the case file No. CIC/AGICI/A/2024/127139 are reproduced as under:
"Background of the RTI Application: The Appellant vide his offline RTI application dated 03/07/2024 received by Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd on 05/07/2024 has asked for the following information,
1. Is Mrs. Nivedha adangal certificate verified with Kilvelur VAO office and Kilvelur Taluk office records by Agriculture dept or Agriculture Insurance Company detail information required.
2. If Mrs. Nivedha adangal certificate verified with Kilvelur VAO office and Kilvelur Taluk office records by Agriculture dept or Agriculture Insurance Company copy of verification report required.
CPIO reply: The information sought in the original application was provided to the applicant vide Letter ref no: 2672/RTI Application/2024-25 dated 11/07/2024 and the same is reiterated below, "Agriculture department has verified and confirmed us Mrs. Nivedha is the tenant farmer, and she cultivated in Survey number 226/4 in Kilvelur village during Rabi 2019-20 season. We request you to kindly contact the concerned State Government departments for any further information in this regard."
First Appeal: The applicant has filed first appeal before First Appellate Authority vide letter dated 18.07.2024 against the above information provided by the CPIO. The FAA has received the appeal on 23/07/2024 and has given the below reply vide letter ref no: AIC/HO/Appeal/4963/3154 dated 08/08/2024, "Our CPIO, Regional office - Chennai vide its reply dated 11/07/2024 has already provided the information sought by you in this Appeal. For verification report and other related information in this regard, you may contact the State Government departments concerned."
Grounds for Second Appeal: It is respectfully submitted that the information sought by the Page 8 of 11 appellant has already been provided within the time limit prescribed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The appellant has now filed a second appeal, claiming that the information provided is incorrect and requesting further clarification on the following matter:
1. Counter petitioner Mrs. Nivetha adangal certificate for crop insurance not verified by AIC with concerned VAO and Taluk Office records of revenue department. Reason for it-information needed.
Submission of this respondent: This respondent respectfully submits that the appellant has never formally requested the specific information mentioned above from this respondent. Furthermore, the appellant is asking for clarifications or explanations related to certain administrative processes, which are not classified as "information" under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The definition of "information" under the RTI Act pertains to data that can be accessed or provided in the form of documents, records, or any material held by a public authority. The appellant's request for an explanation of procedures or verification steps does not fall within this category.
In A.K. Vasudev Vs. CPIO, M/o Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution, New Delhi-110001 (CIC/DOCAF/A/2018/137220), the Commission observes that at the outset it is clarified that under the provisions of the RTI Act only such information as is available and existing and held by the public authority or is under control of the public authority can be provided. The PIO is not supposed to create information that is not a part of the record. He is also not required to interpret information or provide clarification or furnish replies to hypothetical questions.
In M Jameel Basha Vs CPIO, DOPT, New Delhi (CIC/MPERS/A/2017/158527/SD), Commission held that no information has been sought as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. It may be noted that under RTI Act, CPIO is not supposed to create information or interpret/ clarify/ deduct information in respect of queries/clarifications. A Similarly, redressal of grievance, non-compliance of rules, contesting the actions of respondent public authority and suggesting correction in government policies are outside the purview of the RTI Act.
In light of the above precedents, it is respectfully submitted that the appellant's request for an explanation regarding the verification of the adangal certificate does not fall within the scope of the RTI Act. The RTI Act does not require public Page 9 of 11 authorities to explain administrative or procedural decisions, but only to provide access to existing documents and records.
The appellant has filed multiple RTI applications regarding the status of her complaint. In each case, this respondent has responded appropriately and provided sufficient information. It is respectfully submitted that this respondent has acted in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, in providing the information sought by the appellant.
In light of the above facts and legal precedents, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Commission may be pleased to:
• Dismiss the present appeal as devoid of merit, • Recognize that the respondent has complied with all obligations under the RTI Act, and • Uphold the actions of the CPIO and the First Appellate Authority as being in accordance with the provisions of the Act."
Decision:
12. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, noted that the Respondents have provided the information available with them. The RTI Act enables access to information "held" or "under the control" of the Public Authority. In File No. 106793, the queries about (i) whether an amount was returned, (ii) whether criminal action was taken, and (iii) reasons for the same are limited to the status and reasons as recorded. The CPIO (05.01.2024) and the FAA (13.02.2024) have already conveyed the recorded position, including the fact of recovery proceedings and the scheme basis for processing claims.
RTI does not oblige the CPIO to create fresh explanations, opinions, or to justify administrative decisions beyond what is recorded.
13. In File No. 127139, the information sought (verification of the Adangal certificate and a copy of the verification report) pertains to records maintained by State Revenue/Agriculture authorities. The CPIO's reply (11.07.2024), later affirmed by the FAA (08.08.2024), clarifies that AIC relied on confirmations from the concerned department and does not hold the underlying VAO/Taluk Page 10 of 11 verification record. Under the RTI framework, a public authority cannot be compelled to furnish records it does not hold or control; nor is it required to procure/create them from another authority.
14. Much of the Appellant's case is a challenge to the adequacy/correctness of administrative action. The Commission reiterates that grievance redressal, adjudication of fraud, and directing criminal/disciplinary action are outside the mandate of the RTI Act. The Appellant has not produced any cogent material to establish that specific, identifiable records held by the Respondent were withheld.
15. In view of the above, the Commission finds that replies given by the Respondents are in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act and intervention is not warranted in the matters.
The appeals are dismissed 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 Date Copy To:
The FAA Agriculture Insurance Co.
Ltd Plate B & C, 5th floor, office Block-1 East Kidwai Nagar, New Delhi - 110023 Page 11 of 11 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)