Central Information Commission
Harjeet Singh vs Automotive Research Association Of ... on 28 March, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/ARAOI/A/2022/665235 +
CIC/ARAOI/A/2022/665242
HARJEET SINGH ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
The Automotive Research
Association of India, RTI Cell,
S. No. 102, Vetal Hill, Off Paud
Road, Kothrud, Pune-411038,
Maharashtra .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 27/03/2023
Date of Decision : 27/03/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Note - The above mentioned Appeals have been clubbed together for decision
as these are based on similar RTI Applications.
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI applications filed on : 13/10/2022
CPIO replied on : 03/11/2022
First appeals filed on : 04/11/2022
First Appellate Authority orders : 29/11/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : Nil
1
CIC/ARAOI/A/2022/665235
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.10.2022 seeking the following information and the CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 03.11.2022 stating as under:
"Subject Seeking Certified Information regarding compliance of order passed by National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission New Delhi in Appeal Case No 781 of 2020 Titled as Toyota Vs Harjeet Singh & Appeal Case No 33 of 2021 Titled as Harjeet Singh Vs Toyota. Judgment delivered on 26 August 2022 with directions to ARAI of conducting technical analysis regarding Noise, Vibration, Harshness test of disputed vehicle no PB 11 CC 0044, Toyota Innova Crysta.
1)The details of equipment & machinery available with ARAI for conducting the NVH Testing of subject vehicle in static and dynamic mode Reply: Following instrumentation will be used for the subject vehicle testing Data acquisition system: Make- Siemens Digital Industries Software, Inc. Accelerometer:
Make- PCB Piezotronics, Inc. Microphone: Make- Bruel & Kjaer (HBK Company)
2) WRT Point No 1 details of the Authority which approves the equipment and procedures for the said procedure Reply: Standard instruments used for NVH testing. As subject test is non standard test, procedure suggested with our domain expertise.
3)WRT Point No 1 & 2 above, the technical shortcomings in the infrastructure available for conducting the testing as stated above Reply: No technical shortcomings.
4)WRT Point No 3 above, the alternative procedures/Testing centres that have been opted or used by ARAI, Pune for conducting the NVH testing Reply: There is no alternative procedure/testing centres suggested for the subject testing.
5)WRT Point No 4, the details & official addresses of all outsourced NVH testing centres & tracks & copy of contract/agreement/MOU signed between ARAI & said Private/Public Bodies which are hired for conducting the said NVH testing.2
Reply:No outsourcing of testing.
Test is proposed to conduct by ARAI at National Automotive Test Tracks (NATRAX), Pithampur (Indore) test tracks for convenience for witness by vehicle owner.
6)WRT Point No 4 & 5 above legal validity of NVH Testing reports of vehicles endorsed by ARAI Pune regarding tests that are conducted on outsourced or private tracks, equipment & arrangements Reply: Same as given in point no. 5 above.
7) Copy of Complete records of communication (Email, by post, in person meeting records, etc.) exchanged between ARAI Pune and Toyota Kirloskar Company regarding testing of the subject vehicle in compliance of court orders along with final reports, recommendations and agreements generated by ARAI Pune and complete records of the requisition, proposals submitted by Toyota Company Reply: Kindly be informed that correspondence information relates to commercial confidence, trade secrets etc. and disclosure of such information may harm the competitive position of a third party involved in the matter. Hence furnishing of the said information is exempted from disclosure under the provisions of the Section 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act.
8)Technical grounds & copy of communication with Toyota on basis of which ARAI Pune has declined to conduct the NVH testing of subject vehicle at ARAI Pune Reply: ARAI Pune has not declined to conduct the NVH testing of subject vehicle at ARAI Pune.
9)Technical grounds & copy of communication with Toyota on basis of which ARAI Pune has recommended the testing of subject vehicle at NATRAX Indore or any other Private track Reply: As given in point no. 5 above.
10)Details & qualification of technical team members of ARAI Pune and NATRAX Indore who will witness, examine, analyse & endorse the testing of subject vehicle at NATRAX Indore Reply: Test will be conducted by qualified & competent team of ARAI.
11)Supply Technical Details of the equipment that will be used for testing NVH of subject vehicle at NATRAX Indore & the organization who will supply the testing equipment for various purposes viz (ARAI Pune, Toyota Kirloskar or NATRAX 3 Indore) along with certified copy of user manual and calibration certificates of the said equipment Reply: instrumentation details given in point no. 1 above.
12)Procedures under which ARAI Pune will endorse the technical findings by NATRAX Indore regarding NVH Testing or diagnosis of manufacturing defects of subject vehicle.
Reply: ARAI will provide assessment test report with expert comments."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.11.2022. FAA's order, dated 29.11.2022, upheld the reply of CPIO.
CIC/ARAOI/A/2022/665242 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.10.2022 seeking the following information and the CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 03.11.2022 stating as under:
"Subject Seeking Certified Information regarding compliance of order passed by National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission New Delhi in Appeal Case No 781 of 2020 Titled as Toyota Vs Harjeet Singh & Appeal Case No 33 of 2021 Titled as Harjeet Singh Vs Toyota. Judgment delivered on 26 August 2022 with directions to ARAI of conducting technical analysis regarding Noise, Vibration, Harshness test of disputed vehicle no PB 11 CC 0044, Toyota Innova Crysta.
1)Total number of vehicles which have been sent by ARAI Pune to NATRAX Indore, GARC Chennai or any other private tracks for NVH Testing and for other analysis in last 10 years. Kindly furnish the data in tabular form with respect to
a) Year
b) Details of Authority ordering
c) Name of Testing track
d) No of vehicles
e) Nature of analysis/ Technical Fault
f) Machinery deployed for testing Reply: Kindly be informed that correspondence information relates to commercial confidence, trade secrets etc. and disclosure of such information may harm the competitive position of a third party involved in the matter. Hence furnishing of 4 the said information is exempted from disclosure under the provisions of the Section 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act.
2) The complete copy of contract/agreement finalized between Toyota & ARAI Pune for conducting the NVH testing/Analysis of subject vehicle along with details of payments and list of terms and conditions, technical details and legal clauses & disclaimers, if any Reply: Kindly be informed that correspondence information relates to commercial confidence, trade secrets etc. and disclosure of such information may harm the competitive position of a third party involved in the matter. Hence furnishing of the said information is exempted from disclosure under the provisions of the Section 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act.
3) The details of legal responsibility of ARAI Pune WRT joint technical findings and reports that will be submitted to Toyota on completion of vehicle testing Reply: ARAI will provide assessment test report with expert comments."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.11.2022. FAA's order, dated 29.11.2022, upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant set of Second Appeal(s) on the ground of alleged misleading information furnished by the CPIO.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: V K Jadhav, Deputy Director & CPIO present through video- conference.
The CPIO invited attention of the bench towards his written submission dated 23.03.2023, relevant extracts of which (case wise) are reproduced below in verbatim -
In case no. CIC/ARAOI/A/2022/665235 "....appellant had complaint in respect of his vehicle manufactured by Toyota, which in turn had approached ARAI for conducting and submission of 5 report to it in respect of noise, vibration and harshness testing (NVH Testing). The enquiry from Toyota was received by ARAI on 23rd Sept 2022 for which ARAI proposal was sent on 21st Sept., 2022. There is no progress after that. As per Toyota official's feedback, the appellant has not submitted the subject vehicle to Toyota for testing. Till date, no test is conducted by ARAI on the subject vehicle of the appellant. However, the Appellant has filed the application under RTI as well as two appeals, with some misunderstanding keeping in mind the issue in respect of his vehicle. At point No. 1, the Appellant has referred to attesting of subject vehicle". Similarly at point No. 3, 4, 5 in first appeal, he has referred to his complaint in respect of his vehicle manufactured by Toyota and allegations against ARAI and Toyota. Hence, the query as well as the response in the matter are in relation to the vehicle of the Appellant. As such, the application and both the appeals are In the nature of complaint / complaint redressal and in the nature of questioning the procedure followed by ARAI in respect of such tests, rather than just seeking information as per provisions of RTI Act.
D. It is respectfully submitted that as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 only such information as is available and existing and held by the public authority can be provided by a PIO. The PIO is not supposed to create or collate information that is not a part of the record. However, it will be seen that the points raised by the Appellant in his first appeal and this second appeal, are in the nature of complaint or questioning the procedure followed by ARAI or non-existence of records, rather than seeking information.
xxx ...at point No. 2, he sought details of Authority which approves the equipment and procedures for the procedure for conducting the NVH Testing. The response given by PIO was that the subject test is in the nature of non-standard test and hence the test is done with internal domain expertise, meaning thereby non-existence of any specific authority which approves the equipment and / or the procedure for conducting the test, as sought by the Appellant. However, the Appellant is disputing ARAI treating the required test as 'non-standard test'. As such, it cannot be considered as non-supply of information sought as contended by the Appellant. The other points of appeal are more or less of the similar nature, which Is dear from the table at page No. 23 to 27 of the Notice of Appeal dated 7th March, 2023 of this Commission.
P. The Appellate Authority of ARAI has independently examined each of the points raised by the Appellant in his first appeal in his order dated 29th November 2022. However, the Appellant has raised the same points in his instant second appeal to this Commission.
xxx
2. WRT Point No 1 ...
6Standard instruments owned by ARAI are used for NVH testing. As subject test is "non-regulatory test" not covered under CMVR (Central Motor Vehicle Rules), procedure suggested by our domain expertise are used. As such, no specific authority is designated to approve the equipment and procedures for such "non- regulatory tests" and as such, the information about the non-existence of information is already given to the Appellant.
3. WRT Point No 1 & 2 above...
No technical shortcomings. Normally, ARAI does the NVH testing with its equipment and manpower at hired tracks (NATRAX, Indore or VRDE, Ahmednagar or GARC, Chennai) which are developed by Government of India for use by Test Agencies. When no shortcomings arc noted, there is no question of submission of any information.
4. WRT Point No 3 above...
The information is given stating that there is no alternative procedure Resting centers suggested for the subject testing. The allegation of malafide disposal appeal by FM is ill founded. The response has to be seen in the context of query raised.
5. WRT Point No 4...
The information that outsourcing is given in clear terns stating that there is no outsourcing of testing in respect of subject vehicle and that the testing of the subject vehicle will be done by ARAI only.
6. WRT Point No 4 & 5 ...
The information sought is based on proposed test of Appellant's vehicle at the Instance of Toyota and it was clearly stated by PIO that there is no outsourcing of testing for the subject vehicle and the testing will be done by ARAI only. For such purposes, ARAI uses the test track of hired tracks such as NATRAX, Indore or VROE, Ahmednagar or GARC, Chennai, which are developed by Government of India for use by Test Agencies. Treating these methods as outsourcing is absolutely wrong.
Kindly be informed that correspondence information relates to commercial confidence, trade secrets etc and disclosure of such information may harm the competitive position of a third party involved in the matter. Hence furnishing of the said information is exempted from disclosure under the provisions of the Section 8(1) (d) of the RTI Act. ARAI is not party to the court proceedings referred to in this second appeal before Hon. Commission and no specific directions of any Court, are there to ARAI. The reference by Toyota to ARM is in the nature of commercial assignment between Toyota and ARM and hence the exemption under Section 8(11 has been rightly claims in the matter.
8.....
ARM Pune has not declined to conduct the NVH testing of subject vehicle. It is between the Appellant and Toyota to comply with the orders of Court if any, of 7 which ARAI is unaware of. To the information sought, the PIO has rightly Submitted the information, which Is upheld by FAA.
9. .... The information sought by the Appellant is given by PIO that the testing will be done by ARAI only, at track of NATRAX, lndore as requested by Toyota. The matter of convenience is between the Appellant and Toyota, as explained earlier.
10. ..... The information sought in respect of proposed test at t he instance of Toyota and cannot be considered under the RTI Act. The test referred to has not taken place as yet, since the Appellant has not tendered his vehicle to Toyota.
11. ...... The information sought in respect of proposed test of the subject vehicle i.e. the vehicle of Appellant in respect of which he has complaint against Toyota. at the instance of Toyota and hence, cannot be considered the information sought under the RTI Act.
12. .... The information sought in respect of proposed test of the subject vehicle i.e. the vehicle of Appellant in respect of which he has complaint against Toyota, at the instance of Toyota and hence, cannot be considered the information sought under the RTI Act...."
In case no. CIC/ARAOI/A/2022/665242 -
The CPIO reiterated the contents of averred reply.
Decision:
The Commission observes from a perusal of records that the core contention raised by the instant Appeals was the misleading information furnished by the CPIO. In response to which, the CPIO categorically clarified the factual aspect in the matter point wise as mentioned in the preceding paragraphs.
In this regard, the Commission finds no infirmity in the replies and as a sequel to it further clarifications tendered by the CPIO through his latest written submission as it was as per the provisions of RTI Act.
Moreover, the issue raised by the Appellant challenging the veracity of information furnished by CPIO is purely a matter of grievance which is outside the mandate of RTI Act.
In view of the above and considering the absence of the Appellant during hearing, no scope for further intervention is warranted in the matters.8
However, in pursuance of clause 4 of hearing notice, the CPIO is directed to share a copy of his latest written submissions of each case, free of cost with the Appellant, if not provided to him at all. The said direction should be complied by the CPIO within 2 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal (s) are disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 9