Nirdhosh Kumar vs National Insurance Company Limited on 7 December, 2022

[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Nirdhosh Kumar vs National Insurance Company Limited on 7 December, 2022

Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta

                           के   ीय सूचनाआ योग
                      Central Information Commission
                         बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
                       Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                       नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067

िशकायत सं या / Complaint Nos. CIC/NINCL/C/2021/130770

Mr. Nirdhosh KUmar                                 ... िशकायतकता/Complainant
                                  VERSUS
                                   बनाम
CPIO                                               ... ितवादी/Respondent
National Insurance Company Limited
Divisional Office, Begum Bridge
In front of Aapka Bazar, Meerut, UP-
250001

Relevant dates emerging from the complaint:-

RTI : 06-07-2020           FA    : Not on Record       Complaint : 30-07-2021

CPIO : 11-12-2020          FAO : Not on Record         Hearing   : 05-12-2022

                                      ORDER

1. The complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) National Insurance Company Limited, Meerut, UP. The complainant seeking information on twelve points including inter-alia is as under:-

Page 1 of 4

2. The CPIO vide letter dated 11-12-2020 had denied the information as sought by the appellant u/s 8(j) of RTI Act, 2005. No First Appeal is placed on record. No FAA order is placed on record. He has filed a complaint before the Commission on the ground that information sought has not been provided to him and requested to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information.

Hearing:

3. The complainant did not attend the hearing despite being served the hearing notice. The respondent, Ms. Priya Rani, Ass. Manager attended the hearing through video-conferencing.

4. The respondent submitted that vide their letter dated 11.12.2020, they have already denied the requested information being related to third party personal information. Such information is exempted from disclosure as per section 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act, 2005. She further submitted that the applicant has also failed to establish larger public interest in seeking such information.

Decision:

5. This Commission is not adjudicating on furnishing the information to the complainant and therefore, the legal issue to be decided herein is whether there is any malafide of the CPIO which attracts penal action u/Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005. It has been observed that the applicant has sought information regarding policy no. 390102/31/17/6204179290 taken by M/s Web Aggregator Pvt. Ltd., which is a third party. Therefore, the requested information was denied to the applicant under section 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act being related to third party personal information. In this regard, the Commission is of the view that that the requested information has rightly been denied by the respondent under relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 vide their letter dated 11.12.2020.

6. This Commission further observes that while examining the complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, 2005, the CIC has no jurisdiction to direct disclosure of any information. This legal position has been authoritatively settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12- 12-2011. The relevant extract of the said decision is set down below:-

Page 2 of 4

"30. It has been contended before us by the Respondent that under Section 18 of the Act the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission has no power to provide access to the information which has been requested for by any person but which has been denied to him. The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section 20. However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide.

31. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the High court whereby it has been held that the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said Act has nojurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information.

37. We are of the view that Sections 18 and 19 of the Act serve two different purposes and lay down two different procedures and they provide two different remedies. One cannot be a Substitute for the other...."

7. In view of the above, the Commission is of the opinion that prima facie, the adequacy of information cannot be adjudicated by the Commission while examining the complaint and there is no malafide intention of obstructing the information, hence no action warranted under section 20 of the RTI Act. Therefore, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.

8. With above observation, the complaint is disposed of.

9. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज कु मार गु ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date : 05-12-2022 Page 3 of 4 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 National Insurance Company Limited Divisional Office, Begum Bridge In front of Aapka Bazar, Meerut, UP-250001

2. Mr. Nirdhosh Kumar Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission