Central Information Commission
Amit Paliwal vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 20 February, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/LICOI/C/2023/650179
Amit Paliwal ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
LIC, Divisional office, Jeevan
Prakash, Circuit House Road,
P.B. No. 58, Jodhpur - 342011 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 11.02.2025
Date of Decision : 19.02.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 11.07.2023
CPIO replied on : 09.08.2023
First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 11.07.2023 (online) seeking the following information:
"I was the Employee of Adarsh Credit Cooperative Society. Right Now Society is Under Liquidation from 31.12.2019. On Behalf of Employees Liquidator had requested LIC to authorize him to get the Gratuity amount of the employees but LIC of India Jodhpur refused the request and instruct to Employee to bring court order for Gratuity Payment. After all this the staff filed a RTI then LIC replied that Gratuity will be paid to the Page 1 of 6 employee on the request of the Liquidator or Authorized Signatory. Now we have also got the order from the court and also got NOC from Liquidator regrading Gratuity payment. Our LIC Gratuity account number is NGGCA-106000157 in Jodhpur.
I want to know from you that
1. How will our Gratuity be paid now Because all our trustees are in jail now and I want my Gratuity money to come in my individual account. The trust account in which our gratuity payment used to come has become NPA, as all the trustees are in jail. we cannot withdraw the payment from there.
2. Why cant LIC direct the payment of my Gratuity to my account when I have brought court order and NOC from Liquidator.
3. Now I have court order also as LIC had asked me so now in how many days can LIC make my payment?
4. Why are two different statements being given by LIC On one hand LIC is replying in RTI that on the request of Authorized Trustee or Liquidator it will pay Gratuity to the employee and in response to the reply of second RTI it is asking other staff to bring court order Copies of both the RTIs have been attached together.
5. If the staff will get the payment of gratuity after going to the court and bringing the court order then why is LIC not putting my gratuity payment directly into my account Whereas in the reply of that RTI LIC clearly said that action will be taken against the liquidator as per the orders of the court then why is LIC backing away from its own words?
6.I am also sharing the RTI of one of our staff with this in which LIC has clearly said that they will pay Gratuity on the request of the liquidator, so now when the liquidator is asking to pay the staff to the employee then LIC Why is it being said that the payment will be in Gratuity Trust and I will have to get the payment done from that account after getting it signed by the Authenticated signatory of the trust Then what is the use of bringing court order.
I have attached the copy of court order and NOC of liquidator with this"Page 2 of 6
The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the complainant on 09.08.2023 stating as under:
"This has reference to your online RTI application dtd 11/07/2023 with ref no LICNZ/R/E/23/00684 originally addressed to CPIO, LIC of India, Divisional Office, Jodhpur on 11.07.2023. Our reply to the information sought by you as provided by the deemed PIO Manager P&GS, concerned department holding the information is as under; policy NGGCA- 106000157 is a group insurance policy. In group insurance policy, contract is between Life Insurance Corporation of India and Aadarsh Credit Co-operative society. Aadarsh Credit Co-operative Society has taken this policy on lives of their employee. LIC group insurance scheme does not deal with individual employee. Hence, Life Insurance Corporation of India is not liable to give any information to individual employee.
With reference to point no 1,. According to policy's terms and condition Life Insurance Corporation of India is bound to pay policy's benefits to either Trustee or liquidator's account, not to any employee's personal account.
With reference to point no 2, Neither Life Insurance Corporation of India has been made a party by honorable court in the court order provided by you nor they have received any court order to make the payment.
With reference to point no 3, "Now I have court....", this question is futuristic in nature and does not comes under the definition of "Information" under sec 2(f) of RTI act, 2005 With reference to point no 4 & 5, Life Insurance Corporation of India is bound to pay policy's payment to either Trustee or liquidator's account after receipt of requirement as per policy condition..
With reference to point no 6,, Life Insurance Corporation of India is bound to pay policy's payment to either Trustee or liquidator's account after receipt of requirement as per policy condition and till date we have not received clear instructions and due requirements for payment from liquidator."
Being dissatisfied, the complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.
Page 3 of 6Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
A written submission dated 06.02.2025 has been filed by Shri Vijay Satpal, Marketing Manager/FAA, LIC, Jodhpur Divisional Office is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below:
"...It is important to mention here that the Appellant has attached Labour Commission Order dated 16.06.2023, in Case no. ALC/ADI/48(4)/2023 before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Ahmedabad wherein the Applicant is Shri Amit Paliwal (the RTI Appellant) and Opponent l is M/s. Adarsh Credit Co-op Society Ltd. and Opponent - 2 is The Liquidator. As such, LIc of India, the respondent organization is not a party to this case and the order is given to Opponents 1 & 2 for payment of Gratuity and interest to Shri Amit Paliwal.
The Appellant has already received Gratuity payment. The Appellant is now seeking decision of payment of interest @ 10% from the date of his entitlement of gratuity payment till the date of actual payment, through RT forum. The Appellant is also preferring repetitive, multiple complaints on various Grievance related platforms such as ICMS complaints and CPGRAMS complaints seeking decision on payment of Interest on Gratuity.
The RTI forum is not a Grievance redressal forum and the domain of adjudication in the matter is out of purview of RTI Act, 2005.The CPIO can only provide information as available with the Office of Public authority. In view of above clarifications, the complaint filed by Shri Amit Paliwal is not maintainable and is devoid of any merit. The Hon'ble CIC is requested that the complaint preferred by Shri Amit Paliwal be dismissed summarily.
The hard copy of the submission along with enclosures is sent by his registered post to the Appellant at Udaipur address PIN:313001 mentioned in his CIC complaint dated nil ie H No - *****, New Bhupalpura, Udaipur PIN: 313001."
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Present through video-conference.Page 4 of 6
Respondent: Shri Lalit Chauhan, Manager (CRM-PS)/CPIO along with Shri Manoj, Manager present through video-conference.
The respondent by inviting attention of the Commission towards the contents of averred written submission stated that timely response has been given to the complainant initially vide letter dated 09.08.2023. Further, with the receipt of hearing notice from the Commission a detailed reply clarifying factual position was supplied to the complainant vide letter dated 06.02.2025. Upon being queried by the Commission, the Complainant has affirmed the receipt of revised reply from the CPIO, however, he expressed his dissatisfaction to the fact that the reply given to him by the respondent was not as per his expectations. He further contended that there is a delay caused by the Respondent organization in remitting his gratuity amount for which he urged the Commission to take action against the respondent.
Decision The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case and perusal of the records, noted this is a complaint filed under Section 18 of the RTI Act before the Commission, where no further direction for disclosure of information can be given in the light of the judgement decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chief Information Commissioner and another Vs. State of Manipur & Another reported in MANU/SC/1484/2011 : AIR 2012 SC
864.
The role of CIC is restricted only to ascertain if the information has been denied with a mala-fide intention or due to an unreasonable cause. Upon perusal of the facts on record and submissions of the Respondent during hearing, the Commission finds that an appropriate reply has been given by the Respondent earlier vide letter dated 09.08.2023 and now vide letter dated 06.02.2025 in the form of updated reply which is taken on record, a copy of which has already been shared with the Complainant. No mala-fide is established on part of the CPIO in this case. Here, it is relevant to quote a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Registrar of Companies & Ors v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. [W.P.(C) 11271/2009] dated 01.06.2012 wherein it was held:
" 61. It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist Page 5 of 6 cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a show cause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed...."
In view of the above, intervention of the Commission is not required in the matter.
Notwithstanding the above, the Commission adversely viewed the conduct of Shri Vijay Satpal, Marketing Manager/FAA, LIC, Jodhpur Divisional Office in filing the written submission dated 06.02.2025 which does not show signing person's name, phone number and also does not show identifying particular like designation and the contact details of the person deputed to represent the case before the Commission; thus, leaving no option for the registry to contact him, if it wanted to. Such casual act of the respondent tramples upon the citizen's right under the RTI Act as well as shows lack of respect towards the Commission. In this regard, the Respondent is advised to exercise due diligence and ensure that such lapses should not recur in future.
The Complaint is dismissed accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कु मार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूच ना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)