Central Information Commission
Mahesh Chokhani vs The New India Assurance Company Ltd. on 5 September, 2022
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग ,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली New Delhi - 110067
नई द ली,
ि तीयअपीलसं या/Second
Second Appeal No.
No.CIC/NIACL/A/2021/103364
Mr. Mahesh Chokhani ... अपीलकता /Appellant
/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO ... ितवादी/Respondent
/Respondent
The New India Assurance Company
Limited, Mumbai Regional Office
Office-5
Vidhya Commercial Complex, 2nd Floor
Sector-11,
11, CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai
Mumbai-
400614
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
appeal:-
RTI : 08-09-2020 FA : 09-11-2020 SA : 22-01-2021
22
CPIO : 07-10-2020 FAO : 29-11-2020 Hearing: 26
6-08-2022
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) The New India Assurance Company Limited Limited, Mumbai. The appellant seeking information is as under:-
Page 1 of 52. The CPIO vide letter dated 07-10-2020had denied the information as sought by the appellant under section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005.Being dissatisfied with the same, the appellant has filed first appeal dated 09-11- 2020and requested that the information should be provided to him. The FAA vide order dated 29-11-2020 upheld CPIOs reply and disposed the appeal accordingly. He has filed a second appeal 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. Representative of appellant attended the hearing through video- conferencing. The respondent, Shri Rajeev Tiwari, CPIO/Manager (CRM) attended the hearing through video-conferencing.
4. Both the parties submitted their written submissions and the same has been taken on record.
5. The representative of appellant submitted that the desired information has not been provided to the appellant by the respondent on his RTI application dated 08.09.2020.
6. The respondent submitted that vide their letter dated 07.10.2020, they have informed the appellant that since the information sought by him pertains to third party personal information and disclosure of such information would also affect the commercial interest of third party, therefore the same cannot be provided to the appellant being exempted under section 8 (1) (j) & 8 (1) (d) of RTI Act, 2005. The appellant has also failed to establish larger public interest in seeking such information.
Decision:
7. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that the appellant has sought information regarding M/s Shree Mahesh Industries Limited and other queries related thereto. The appellant has contended that he is seeking information related to a fire claim pertaining to his company and he being the Director of the said company is entitled to receive the requested information from the respondent. On the other hand, the respondent has contended that the appellant has never disclosed that he is the Director of the said company; therefore they have treated Page 2 of 5 the requested information as third party personal information, the disclosure of which would also affect the commercial interest of third party. Hence, they have denied the desired information to the appellant under relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. In this regard, the Commission is of the opinion that as far as information sought at point nos. 1, 3 to 5 of RTI application is concerned, the appellant is seeking copy of Survey Report, Claim note sheet submitted to the competent authority, Addendum to the Survey Report and Preliminary Survey Report which should be provided to the appellant as he is seeking information related to the claim taken on account of his own company. Moreover, w.r.t the information sought at point no. 2 of RTI application, the appellant is seeking copy of forensic audit report which is a confidential document and has bearing on commercial interest, therefore such document cannot be provided to the appellant as per section 8 (1) (d) of RTI Act, 2005.
8. In the context of non-disclosure of information under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005, the decision in Naresh Trehan vs Rakesh Kumar Gupta(W.P(C) 85/2010) decided on 24.11.2014, was referred to, wherein it was held as under:
14. "....Such information would clearly disclose the pricing policy of the assessee and public disclosure of this information may clearly jeopardise the bargaining power available to the assessee since the data as to costs would be available to all agencies dealing with the assessee. It is, thus, essential that information relating to business affairs, which is considered to be confidential by an assessee must remain so, unless it is necessary in larger public interest to disclose the same. If the nature of information is such that disclosure of which may have the propensity of harming one's competitive interests, it would not be necessary to specifically show as to how disclosure of such information would, in fact, harm the competitive interest of a third party. In order to test the applicability of Section 8(1)(d) of the Act it is necessary to first and foremost determine the nature of information and if the nature of information is confidential information relating to the affairs of a private entity that is not obliged to be placed in public domain, then it is necessary to consider whether its disclosure can possibly have an adverse effect on third parties."
9. Further, w.r.t the information sought at point nos. 6 to 9 of RTI application, the appellant is not seeking any information which believes to be existing in material form instead he is seeking reasons/ clarifications related to Page 3 of 5 the delay in submission of Survey Report etc. Such clarifications/ reasons cannot be adjudicated under the ambit of RTI Act, 2005. The CPIO is not supposed to furnish clarifications; or to furnish reasons as these are not covered within the definition of 'information' u/Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 and the reasons/opinions/advices can only be provided to the applicants if it is available on record of the public authority. The CPIO cannot create information in the manner as sought by the appellant. The CPIO is only a communicator of information based on the records held in the office and hence, he cannot expect to do research work to deduce anything from the material therein and then supply it to him.
10. In this regard, the Commission refers to the definition of 'information' u/s Section 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."
In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors), wherein it was held as under:
35 "A Public Authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making assumptions. 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' n the definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only 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."
11. In light of the above observations, the Commission deems it fit to direct the respondent to provide a revised reply w.r.t point nos. 1, 3 to 5 of RTI application vide which copy of relevant documents as sought on these points should be furnished to the appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Page 4 of 512. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
13. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरजकु मारगु ा)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरजकु ा
सूचनाआयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक / Date : 05-09-2022
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
The New India Assurance Company Limited,
Mumbai Regional Office-5
Vidhya Commercial Complex, 2nd Floor
Sector-11, CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai-400614
2. Mr. Mahesh Chokhani
Page 5 of 5