Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

M. B. Chandran vs The New India Assurance Company Ltd. on 27 December, 2021

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

ि तीयअपीलसं या/Second Appeal No. CIC/NIACL/A/2020/674037

Mr. M B Chandran                                  ... अपीलकता /Appellant
                                   VERSUS
                                    बनाम
CPIO                                                     ... ितवादी/Respondent
New India Assurance Company
Limited, New India Assurance
Bulding, 87 MG Road, Fort,
Mumbai-400001

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:-

RTI : 18-02-2020            FA     : 07-03-2020          SA       : 17-06-2020

CPIO : 04-03-2020           FAO : 28-05-2020             Hearing: 23-12-2021

                                  ORDER

1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) New India Assurance Company Limited, Mumbai. The appellant seeking information is as under:-

1. Kindly furnish the information as to the Annuity No. ON-0005 Purchased for former New India Assurance Co. CMD Shri G Srinivasan who is covered under Para 54B of General Insurance employees Pension Scheme 1995 is calculated as per Central civil service Pension rules or as per Para 37 of General Insurance employees Pension Scheme 199.

2. If calculated on some other method, kindly furnished the details.

3. Kindly Furnish a copy of the sanction obtained from Pension fund trust for the Purchase of above Annuity No ON-0005 calculated on the Basis of Central civil service Pension rules.

4. Kindly furnish a copy of the resolution passed in the Pension fund trust for calculation of Pension of employee covered under 54B of General Insurance employees Pension Scheme 1995 on the Basis of Central civil service Pension rules which is different from the calculation of other employees.

2. The CPIO vide letter dated 04-03-2020 had provided point-wise reply of the RTI application. Being dissatisfied with the same, the appellant has filed first appeal dated 07-03-2020 and requested that the information should be provided to him. The FAA vide order dated 28-05-2020 upheld CPIOs reply and disposed the appeal. 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. The appellant attended the hearing through audio-call. The respondent, Mrs. Ranjana Nighot, Representative of CPIO/ Manager attended the hearing through audio-call.

4. Both the parties submitted their written submissions and the same has been taken on record.

5. The appellant reiterated the contents of his RTI Application and submitted that the complete and correct information has not been provided to him by the respondent on his RTI application dated 18.02.2020. He has raised an issue w.r.t point no. 3 of his RTI Application.

6. The respondent submitted that vide their letter dated 04.03.2020, they have already provided the relevant information sought at point no. 4 of the RTI Application as per their available records. That the information sought on other points of the RTI Application cannot be provided under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 being personal information related to the third party. That there is no relationship with any public activity in disclosing 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 related to Shri G Srinivasan which is more in the nature of seeking clarifications. That queries related to clarifications are not maintainable under the RTI Act, still the respondent has provided point-wise reply to the appellant vide their letter dated 04.03.2020. It has been observed that the CPIO is not supposed to create information; or to interpret information; or to furnish clarification to the appellant under the ambit of the RTI Act. As per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 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 expected to do research work to deduce anything from the material therein and then supply it to him.

8. In this regard, the Commission referred 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' in 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."

9. Moreover, the appellant is seeking personal information related to Shri G Srinivasan who is a third party, hence the reply furnished by the respondent vide letter dated 04.03.2020 is correct. That such information is also barred from disclosure under section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005.

10. Keeping in view of the same, the Commission is of the opinion that the reply provided by the respondent is satisfactory and same is being upheld by the Commission. For the redressal of his grievance, if any, the appellant is advised to file a complaint with the respondent public authority through their online portal or through appropriate forum.

11. No further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.

12. 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 : 23-12-2021
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
      New India Assurance Company Limited,
      New India Assurance Bulding,
      87 MG Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001


2.    Mr. M B Chandran




                                                                       Page 4 of 4