Central Information Commission
Sumit Kumar vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. on 19 June, 2019
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/OINCL/A/2018/612297-BJ
Mr. Sumit Kumar
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
Regional Office - I, Hansalaya Building
15, Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place
New Delhi - 110001
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 19.06.2019
Date of Decision : 19.06.2019
Date of RTI application 13.12.2017
CPIO's response 11.01.2018
Date of the First Appeal 23.01.2018
First Appellate Authority's response 08.02.2018
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information in respect of his Car Claim, formalities which had been completed in the month of September, 2017, details of time taken by the Bank to complete the procedure of Claim and in how much time he would get the amount of Claim for policy number mentioned in the RTI application, etc. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 11.01.2018 stated that as per their concerned Office/Department, the said claim stands closed as NO Claim due to recovery of vehicle as per the investigation report of Global Services appointed in this claim by the Claim Hub/CBRO, Delhi. Dissatisfied with the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 08.02.2018 stated that the insured took the vehicle to the workshop without any intimation to the insurer and got it repaired thereby not giving any opportunity to survey the damaged vehicle by the surveyor, and hence, the claim was rightly repudiated by the concerned office.Page 1 of 5
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Sumit Kumar;
Respondent: Mr. Pradeep Srivastava, Regional Manager and Mr. Siddharth Ahlawat, Assistant Manager;
The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and stated that his grievance for settlement of his claim had not been settled appropriately. In its reply, the Respondent explained the procedure and the antecedents for filing of the theft claim subsequently converted to repair claim which was dealt with as per their guidelines. The Appellant however remained dissatisfied with the response of the Respondent. The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 14.06.2019, wherein while reiterating the response of the CPIO/FAA, it was submitted that the Applicant had mentioned in the Appeal that the investigator who was attending the theft claim had asked him to get the vehicle repaired and send the bills to him. The investigator vide his mail dated 14.02.2018 clarified that he was asked by the insured about the next process as the vehicle was in damaged position. The investigator told the insured that he was investigator not surveyor who could assess the loss/damages. He further advised the insured to inform the Company for appointment of surveyor for assessing the loss and then get the vehicle repaired and submit repaired bills for reimbursement. The Respondent enclosed the copy of mail dated 14.02.2018. As the insurer was not given an opportunity to survey the damaged vehicle, the claim lodged by the insured for repair had been rightly repudiated. The query raised by the Applicant through his application/Appeal was for redressal of grievance and did not fall within the purview of the RTI as no information/query was asked. He wants his claim to be settled which was not payable as per terms and conditions of the policy. They still responded/clarified to his all queries. Hence, the information sought by the applicant was correctly provided. It was further submitted that he was pursuing his grievance through RTI application. Therefore, it was requested to the Commission to close the matter.
The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, 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."
Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract of Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:
"(j) right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes ........"
In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay), wherein it was held as under:
35..... "It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only Page 2 of 5 refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had held as under:
6. "....Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, 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."
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed."
7. "....the Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him."
The Commission observed that the framework of the RTI Act, 2005 restricts the jurisdiction of the Commission to provide a ruling on the issues pertaining to access/ right to information and to venture into the merits of a case or redressal of grievance. The Commission in a plethora of decisions including Shri Vikram Singh v. Delhi Police, North East District, CIC/SS/A/2011/001615 dated 17.02.2012 Sh. Triveni Prasad Bahuguna vs. LIC of India, Lucknow CIC/DS/A/2012/000906 dated 06.09.2012, Mr. H. K. Bansal vs. CPIO & GM (OP), MTNL CIC/LS/A/2011/000982/BS/1786 dated 29.01.2013 had held that RTI Act was not the proper law for redressal of grievances/disputes.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Union of India v. Namit Sharma in REVIEW PETITION [C] No.2309 OF 2012 IN Writ Petition [C] No.210 OF 2012 with State of Rajasthan and Anr. vs. Namit Sharma Review Petition [C] No.2675 OF 2012 In Writ Petition [C] No.210 OF 2012 had held as under:
"While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority.Page 3 of 5
This function obviously is not a judicial function, but an administrative function conferred by the Act on the Information Commissions."
Furthermore, the High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors. LPA No.785/2012 dated 11.01.2013 held as under:
"6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 LPA No.785/2012 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate forum. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."
Moreover, in a recent decision in Govt. of NCT vs. Rajendra Prasad WP (C) 10676/2016 dated 30.11.2017, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had held as under:
6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes.
7. In the present case, it is apparent that CIC had decided issues which were plainly outside the scope of the jurisdiction of CIC under the Act. The limited scope of examination by the CIC was: (i) whether the information sought for by the respondent was provided to him; (ii) if the same was denied, whether such denial was justified; (iii) whether any punitive action was required to be taken against the concerned PIO; and (iv) whether any directions under Section 19(8) were warranted. In addition, the CIC also exercises powers under Section 18 of the Act and also performs certain other functions as expressly provided under various provisions of the Act including Section 25 of the Act. It is plainly not within the jurisdiction of the CIC to examine the dispute as to whether respondent no.2 was entitled to and was allotted a plot of land under the 20-Point Programme.
A similar view delineating the scope of the Commission's jurisdiction was also taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Sher Singh Rawat vs. Chief Information Commissioner and Ors., W.P. (C) 5220/2017 and CM No. 22184/2017 dated 29.08.2017 and in the matter of Shobha Vijender vs. Chief Information Commissioner W.P. (C) No. 8289/2016 and CM 34297/2016 dated 29.11.2017.
Page 4 of 5DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, it is evident that technically this matter pertained to redressal of his grievance which was outside the purview of the RTI Act, 2005 and therefore the Appellant was advised to approach an appropriate forum.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Bimal Julka) (िबमल जु का)
(Information Commissioner) (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
(K.L. Das) (के .एल.दास)
(Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 19.06.2019
Page 5 of 5