Central Information Commission
Sanjay Kumar Baid vs National Automotive Training And Randd ... on 28 September, 2021
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग ,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीयअपीलसं या/Second Appeal No. CIC/NATRI/A/2019/652684
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Baid ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
The CPIO ... ितवादी/Respondent
International Centre For Automotive
Technology, Centre-I : Plot No. - 26,
Sector-3,HSIIDC, IMT-Manesar,
Gurugram-122050
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:-
RTI : 07-07-2019 FA : 19-07-2019 SA : 04-10-2020
Hearing: 24.05.2021
CPIO : 20-08-2019 FAO : 28-08-2019
&24-09-2021
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), International Centre for Automotive Technology, Gurugram.The appellant seeking information is as under:-
"Copy of Test reports and approvals issued by test agencies (ARAI , ICAT, NATRIP or any other approved) for maruti Suzuki ltd model CIAZ SMART HYBRID AT ALPHA based on which this model is being authorized to be registered at various RTO."
2. As the CPIO had denied the information sought under section 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act, 2005, the appellant filed the first appeal dated 19.07.2019 as the information sought has been denied by the CPIO and requesting that the information should be provided to him. The first appellate authority upheld CPIO's reply vide order dated 28.08.2019 and disposed of his first appeal. He has filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission on the ground that information has not been provided to him and Page 1 of 3 requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information.
3. The instant matter has been listed for hearing on 24.05.2021, wherein the interim decision has been passed with the following observations:-
"The Commission directs the respondent to consult the concerned officer in their office and file written submissions before the Commission prior to the next date of hearing that as to whether the broad outcome of the test report can be disclosed in public domain and also give detailed reasons that as to why Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act is applicable in the present case, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order."
4. Inview of the above, the matter was thus adjourned and listed today for hearing.
Hearing:
5. The appellant attended the hearing through audio-call. The respondent, Ms. Vijayanta, CPIO/DGM along with Adv. Vikramjit, Shri Hemant Kumar & Shri Tanu Singhal attended the hearing through audio-call.
6. Both the parties submitted their written submissions and the same has been taken on record.
7. The appellant submitted that he has received a reply from ARAI stating that "issuance of type approval certificate copy to public is not mandatory under CMVR. Whereas, specific copy can be made available for public if ordered by appropriate authority. In some instance, ARAI may inform the certificate owner organization and seek its permission before issuance of certificate to public."He further submitted that copy of test report has not been provided by the respondent.
8. On being queried by the Commission as to why test reports cannot be shared with the appellant, Ms.Vijayanta informed that they are testing multiple components which includes vendor's details as well as technical details based on the regulations which cannot be shared with public as such information is of commercial confidence.
Decision:
9. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that the relevant information, depending on the requirement of Registration is already made available to Stakeholders such as: Owner, Dealers, Transport Commissioners/RTO via digital platform of parivahan.nic.in. But the test reports are technical in nature as during test, various designs and specifications of the vehicle, technical details related to Page 2 of 3 themanufacturing of vehicleare also submittedand such details are unique to every vehicle/model andhence there are strong chances of misuse of such proprietary information by competition or any other interested party. Hence, the respondent have not shared this information under clause 8(1)(d) of RTI Act. It has further been observed that ICAT and its client M/s MSIL have Non- Disclosure Agreement (NDA) which prohibits ICAT to divulge any confidential information of M/s MSIL to any third party. The Commission observes that the appellant has claimed that the vehicle is not performing as per its performance claim which is more of grievance of a consumer which cannot be redressed under the RTI Act. The Commission suggests the appellant that he may approach an appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance.
10. In the light of above observations, the Commission is of the view that broad outcome of the test reports i.e Certificate including details of performance claim of vehicle has already been provided by the respondent.However, copy of test reports cannot be provided being exempted under section 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act. The said denial of information by the respondent is in order and same is being upheld by the Commission.
11. No further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
12. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
13. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरजकु मारगु ा)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरजकु ा
सूचनाआयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक / Date : 24-09-2021
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणतस#यािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा ),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO
International Centre For Automotive Technology, Centre-I : Plot No. - 26, Sector-3,HSIIDC, IMT-Manesar, Gurugram-122050
2. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Baid Page 3 of 3