Central Information Commission
Samir Sardana vs Ecgc Limited on 11 May, 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/ECGCL/A/2022/624590
Samir Sardana ......अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
ECGC LTD., RTI CELL, 506, TOWN
CENTRE, 1, MAROL, ANDHERI
KURLA ROAD, ANDHERI EAST,
MUMBAI-400059, MAHARASHTRA. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 17/02/2023
Date of Decision : 26/04/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on :28/01/2022
CPIO replied on :25/02/2022
First appeal filed on :05/03/2022
First Appellate Authority's :08/04/2022
order
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated :29/04/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.01.2022 seeking the following information and the CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 25.02.2022 stating as under:
IRDA inspections Financial Year-2017-18: 1 inspection done 1 • PIO to state the Financial Year-2018-19: NIL number of IRDA Financial Year-2019-20: NIL inspections of ECGC,done in the 3 years,ending on FY 2020 PIO to state if the No, the inspection details are not available in the public IRDA inspections domain.
are available in the public domain,and so to provde the coordinates of the domain • PIO to allow the As this pertains to 3rd party report, we are unable to provide applicant to the same.
inspect the IRDA inspection reports at the Delhi office of ECGC for the 3 years ending on FY 2020 IRDA reportage NIL • PIO to state the number of additional reports given by ECGC to the IRDA in FY 2020 and FY 2019,beyond the periodic reporting to be done by the ECGC to the IRDA • PIO to provide This parameter is not applicable in our reporting to the IRDA.
the following reports made by ECGC to the 2 IRDA,in FY 2019 and FY 2020 o Loss ratio for the trade credit insurance product o Policy-holder wise-Buyer wise claims recovery ECGC ECL As at end of FY 2021, there are 25228 entities in ECGC • PIO to state the Specific Approval List.
number of entities in the ECGC Caution list,as at the end of FY 2021 • PIO to state the Data is not stored segregated on commodity. number of entities in the gems and jewellery sector,in the ECGC Caution list,as at the end of FY 2021 • PIO to state the Data is not stored segregated on commodity. number of entities in the mining sector,in the ECGC Caution list,as at the end of FY 2021 • PIO to provide This data is exempted under Sec 8(1) (d). the ECGC caution list which was valid as at the end of FY 2018 and FY 2020 • PIO to provide This data is exempted under Sec 8(1) (d). the list of black listed entities and 3 individuals,as buyers of Indian exported goods,being buyers per se or promoters or directors in the buyer entity,as at the end of FY 2018 and FY 2020 Defaulters This information sought in this regard is not available.
• PIO to state the
number of policies
sold in the 3 years
ending on FY
2020,wherein the
policy holders or
the buyers,came
into the ECGC
caution list AFTER
THE ISSUANCE of
the ECGC policy
o Within the
above,PlO
to state the
number of
poicies
wherein
ECGC denied
the claims
or cancelled
the policy
due to fraud
• PIO to state the This information sought in this regard is not available number of policies sold in the 3 years ending on FY 4 2020,wherein the policy holders or the buyers,came into the RBI Defaulter/Wilful Defaulters list or the CIBIL,CERSAI, CFR, CRILC databases,AFTER THE ISSUANCE of the ECGC policy o Within the above,PlO to state the number of poicies wherein ECGC denied the claims or cancelled the policy due to fraud Policy This information sought in this regard is not available • PIO to state if ECGC can sell to or include an exporter,in a ECGC policy,who is named in the CFR data base,of the RBI • PIO to state if This information sought in this regard is not available ECGC can sell to or include an exporter,in a ECGC policy,who is named in the Wilful defaulter data base,of the RBI 5 Recoveries This information sought in this regard is not available • PIO to state the anount of recoveries made in the last 5 years ending on FY 2020,from other than the policy holders or importers in foreign nations or Indian banks Re-insurers • PIO to provide the names of the reinsurers of ECGC,for the TOP 5 insurance segements,by premium earned in FY 2020 • PIO to provide the names of the reinsurers of ECGC,for the TOP 5 insurance segements,by claims admitted in FY 2020 • PIO to state that NO such data is maintained it has the financial reports (credit reports and annual reports) of the re-
insurers as of FY 2020 6 • PIO to state the NO such data is maintained aggregate net retentions of ECGC for trade credit insurance as a % of net-worth Re-insurer There is no such case. defaults • PIO to provide the number of cases in the last 10 years,ending on FY 2020,wherein the reinsurer has denied liability although ECGC has admitted the claims of the policy holders Credit We are unable to disclose the information as the information management commercial confidentially, the disclosure or such information agency exempt to any third party in pursuance of clause (d) and € • PIO to provide sub section (1) of Section 8 of Right to Information Act,2005. the name of the Credit management agencies used by ECGC in the 5 years ending on FY 2020,and the aggregate fees paid to EACH of these agencies,in the 3 years,ending in FY 2020 (for buyer verification) 7 • PIO to provide Under UCIB, we did not use any credit management agencies the name of the in the 5 years ending FY 2020. Credit management agencies used by ECGC in the 5 years ending on FY 2020,and the aggregate fees paid to EACH of these agencies,in the 3 years,ending in FY 2020 (for exporter verification Claim Rejection Information is not available. Reasons • PIO to state the number and value of claims rejected by ECGC in the last 5 years ending on FY 2020,on the grounds of fraud • PIO to state the 163 cases for an amount of Rs. 130.6 crores.
number and value of claims rejected by ECGC in the last 5 years ending on FY 2020,on the grounds of the claim not being reported or claimed within the time caveats • PIO to state the 9 cases for an amount of Rs. 9.4 crore. number and value of claims rejected 8 by ECGC in the last 5 years ending on FY 2020,on the grounds of the shipment not being declared under the policy within the time caveats • PIO to state the 461 cases for an amount Rs. 366.7 crore. number and value of claims rejected by ECGC in the last 5 years ending on FY 2020,on ANY OTHER GROUND • PIO to provide the value of the Top 5 claims by value,rejected by ECGC,in the 5 years ending on FY 2020 -
ALONGWITH THE CO-TERMINUS NAME OF THE CLAIMANT Waivers Waivers was made in four cases.
• PIO to state the number of waivers made by ECGC in the last 3 years ending on FY 2020,on the matter of delayed declarations of 9 shipments to ECGC • PIO to state the Waivers was made in 1143 cases.
number of waivers
made by ECGC in
the last 3 years
ending on FY
2020,on the
matter of breach
of ANY OTHER
conditions of the
ECGC policy
Claims lead time
• W.r.t the
NUMBER and
VALUE of claims
outstanding with
ECGC as at the end
of FY 2020,the PIO
is to state the
following
o Claims
outstanding for
more than 1 year
and less than 2
years -
0 Claims
outstanding for
more than 2 years
and less than 3
years
o Claims
outstanding for
more than 3 years
10
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05.03.2022 stating as under:
"Ground of PIO - No.1 · PIO states "information is not available", w.r.t. several information requirements. The PIO does not state NIL or Not applicable. That means to the applicant. This is NOT a ground for rejection u/s 8 of the RTI Act. IRDA regulations and insurance contracts have specific clauses regard exemption events - which HAVE TO BE RECORDED by ECGC and would be subject to audit and other review.
Ground of PIO - No.2 · PIO has made a false reply w.r.t. several information requirements Ground of PIO - No.3 · PIO has made an illegal rejection u/s 8(1)(d),of information w/o any basis or reasoning and in some cases - is illogical and senseless Ground of PIO - No.4 · PIO has made a non-reply w.r.t some information requirements Ground of PIO - No.5 · PIO has made a rejection o/s the ambit of the RTI Act Ground of PIO - No.6 · PIO has not applied Section 10 of the RTI Act to provide redacted information and allow inspection in cases, where information is denied.
FAA's order, dated 08.04.2022, has revised all the replies of the CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal stating inter alia as under:
"7.2. The EIGHT (8) Grounds of Appeal, are given below: Ground of Appeal No.1 - The PIO HAS MADE AN ILLEGAL REJECTION AS 3 RD PARTY INFORMATION Ground of Appeal No.2 - The PIO HAS MADE REJECTIONS O/S THE AMBIT OF THE RTI ACT Ground of Appeal No.3 - NON-REPLY BY THE PIO Ground of Appeal No.4 - The PIO HAS MADE AN ILLEGAL REJECTION U/S 8(1)(D) Ground of Appeal No.5- PIO HAS MADE A FALSE REPLY Ground of Appeal No.6- THE INFORMATION IS SOUGHT IN PUBLIC INTEREST Ground of Appeal No.7- PIO does not have the ken to execute a Rights based welfare enactment Ground of Appeal No.8 - ECGC is not exempted from standards of oversight, transparency and accountability."11
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: Rajesh Kumar, AGM & CPIO along with R K Pandian, DGM & FAA present through video conference.
The CPIO reiterated the reply provided to the Appellant and stated that there is nothing further to add in this regard.
Decision:
The Commission observes from a perusal of the facts on record that the information sought for in the RTI Application is unspecific and humungous and does not even conform to the word limit of 500 as prescribed in Rule 3 of RTI Rules, 2012. As it appears it would be impossible for the public authority to provide information of such magnitude in any form and will be further unreasonable to expect the CPIO to correctly apply their mind to decipher what information can be provided or what should be exempted. Yet, it is noteworthy that the CPIO has attempted to decipher the RTI Application with utmost diligence to provide the maximum permissible information and has invoked relevant exemption clauses of the RTI Act wherever applicable.
In the facts of the instant case, the Commission also relies on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's observation in the matter of Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) & anr. v. Aditya Bandhopadhyay and others [(2011) 8 SCC 497] stating that:
"37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption. But in regard to other information, (that is information other than those enumerated in section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act), equal importance and emphasis are given to other public interests (like confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, 12 efficient operation of governments, etc.). Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non- productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
Having observed as above, the Appellant is advised to make judicious use of his right to information in future.
The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 13