Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Mr.Sushil Kumar Jain vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. on 1 March, 2013

                  Central Information Commission
Room No.307, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New 
                                Delhi­110066
           Telefax:011­26180532 & 011­26107254 website­cic.gov.in

                   Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2012/001548

Appellant /Complainant:       :     Shri Sushil Kumar Jain, Kolkata 
(Sh.Dev Anand Agarwal  
                              Represented the appellant)
Public Authority              :     National Insurance Co. Ltd., 
Kolkata
                              (Sh.Bhar­CPIO, Sh.P.R.Dass­FAA, 
                              through videoconferencing) 

Date of Hearing               :     01 March 2013 
Date of Decision              :     01 March 2013 
  
Facts:­ 

1. Appellant   submitted   RTI   application   dated   2   May   2012  before   the   CPIO,   National   Insurance   Company   Limited,  Divisional office XXII, Kolkata to obtain general information  regarding   norms/circulars/guidelines   issued   in   regard   to   the  registration, handling, settlement and disposal of claims, for  conducting   physical   inspection,   for   disposal   of   salvage  material, for making on account claim payments and also with  specific reference to action taken in the matter of insurance  claim   made   against   fire   policy   no.150109/11/08/   3100000349  through 10 points - enclosed herewith as Annexure A.

2. Not   receiving   a   response   from   the   CPIO,   appellant  preferred appeal dated 8 June 2012 before the first appellate  authority who informed the appellant vide his order dated 13  June 2012 that the CPIO would provide him with the requested  information.   Subsequently   Vide   his   letter   of   29   June   2012,  CPIO provided point wise information to the appellant.

3. Being   aggrieved   and   not   being   satisfied   by   the   above  orders,   appellant   preferred   second   appeal   before   the  Commission. Matter was heard today via videoconferencing from  Kolkata where both parties as above were present in person and  made submissions.

Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2012/001548       

4. Appellant   was   aggrieved   by   the   fact   that   the   public  authority   had   not   adhered   to   the   provisions  of   section   4   of  the Act which casts obligations on public authorities to suo  motu place various  categories  of information into the public  domain including the names of the CPIO and the first appellate  authority.   Appellant   gave   several   instances   and   examples   of  the   lapses   on   this   count   by   the   National   Insurance   Company  Limited. Appellant was also aggrieved by the fact that he had  not been provided with full and complete information as held  by the public authority in response to his RTI application and  that whatever information he was provided was way beyond the  30 day period prescribed under the Act and that the letter was  not signed by the CPIO but by the Divisional manager and the  name and designation of the first appellate authority was also  not   conveyed   to   the   appellant   in   the   order   of   the   CPIO.  Further,   appellant   made   certain   allegations   regarding  backdating of documents which were provided to him. 

5. Respondent   submits   that   the   information   sought  particularly in points 1, 2, 3 and 4 are not specific but very  general   requests   for   information   which   cover   a   vast   area  within   the   various   disciplines   of   the   insurance   industry  thereby   making   the   task   of   providing   information   very  difficult.

Decision notice

6. After   hearing   both   the   parties,   Commission   directs   as  follows:

Points   1,   2,   3,   4   and   5:   Appellant   has   clarified   that  information   sought   pertains   to   fire   insurance   claims.  Accordingly   the   CPIO   will   provide   copies   of   any   general  internal   circulars   etc   previously   not   furnished   to   the  appellant.   In   case   no   other   information   is   available,   CPIO  will   provide   affidavit   to   the   Commission   with   copy   to   the  appellant that full and complete information as held by them  has already been provided to the appellant. Point   9:   Both   parties   have   agreed   that   copies   of  correspondence and communications exchanged between the public  authority  and the surveyor  with reference  to the appellant's  claim  under the aforementioned  fire policy  have already been  provided to the appellant.  Now, appellant  requests  for proof  Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2012/001548        of   dispatch   of   the   said   letters,   which   information,   the  appellant states is not readily available. CPIO is directed to  put in serious effort to try and locate this information and  to provide the same to the appellant. Point 10: Respondent states that information as held by them  has   already   been   furnished   to   the   appellant   who   denies   the  same.   CPIO   is   directed   to   ascertain   if   there   is   any   other  correspondence  other than what has already  been furnished  to  the appellant and provide the same to him. In   this   matter   appellant   submits   that   he   had   been   provided  with letter dated  16 November 2011 which is signed by Regional manager Kolkata  RO   -   II   in   which   a   reference   is   made   to   DPG   letter   of   23  December 2011 and has expressed concern that this letter of 16  November   2011   is   back   dated   on   this   account.   Commission  directs the CPIO to ascertain if this is a typographical error  and intimate the facts to the appellant. Information   as   above   to   be   provided   within   four   weeks   of  receipt of the order.
Commission   notes   that   the   information   furnished   to   the  appellant   by   the   public   authority   is   well   beyond   the  prescribed period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the  RTI application. Accordingly show cause notice is issued to the  then CPIO to show cause why penalty should not be imposed upon  him for having contravened the provisions of the Act relating  to timeframe prescribed for providing information. Accordingly  he   is   directed   to   send   written   submission   to   the   Commission  within two weeks of receipt of this order giving reasons for  such delay and to appear before the Commission on  6.5.2013 at  11.00 AM  at NIC Video Conferencing Studio, 18, Rawdon Street,  1st. Floor, Kolkata­700017 (West Bengal) Contact Officer - Mr.  Devashish   Chandra,   Tech.   Director   and   Contact   No.   033­ 22877320 / 22804061  for personal hearing.

Commission is dismayed to note that the public authority had  failed to appoint CPIO In respect of Divisional Office - XXII  which is yet another flagrant violation of the Act. Such acts  reflect   the   casual   and   nonserious   approach   of   the   public  authority  in fulfilling the basic  obligations  cast upon them  by the transparency act and they are warned to be more careful  Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2012/001548        in future and also to review their present setup in respect of  the RTI regime and to strengthen it. 

(Smt. Deepak Sandhu) Information Commissioner (DS) Authenticated true copy:

(T. K. Mohapatra) Dy. Secretary & Dy. Registrar Tel. No. 011­26105027 Copy to:­
1. Shri Sushil Kumar Jain  C/o S. Saraogi & Co.,  Room No. 9, 2nd. Floor,  1/1A, Vansittari Row Kolkata­700001 (WB)
2. The CPIO National Co. Ltd.,  Kolkata Division - XXII,  National Insurance Bldg.,  8, India Exchange Place, Gr. Floor  Kolkata­700001(WB) 3 The Appellate Authority Regional Manager      National Co. Ltd.,  Kolkata  Regional Office­II,  National Insurance Bldg.,  8, India Exchange Place, Gr. Floor  Kolkata­700001(WB)   Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2012/001548