Central Information Commission
Bhaskar Roy vs National Insurance Company Limited on 6 October, 2020
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या/Second Appeal No. CIC/NINCL/A/2019/649799
Bhaskar Roy ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, National Insurance ... ितवादी/Respondent
Company Limited, Malda.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 24-05-2019 FA : 12-07-2019 SA : 06-09-2019
CPIO : 18-06-2019 FAO : Not on Record Hearing: 28-09-2020
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), National Insurance Company Limited, Malda seeking following information regarding M/s Phoenix Overseas Ltd, Kolkata:-
(a) "Why there is no response from the Insurer against the claim of Rs.7500/- lodged by the Insured by their E Mail/Letters dated 22.11.2018/29.11.2018 under Machinery Breakdown Policy No. 150700/44/17/10000008? What steps has been taken by the concerned authorities in this regard.
(b) What is the fate of the above claim? Please provide the name/ designation of the authorities responsible for taking steps in this regard.
(c) The reason as to why the Insurer has declined to receive the Insured's letter dated 30.01.2019?
(d) As per Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (Protection of Policy holder's Interest) Regulation, 2017, Clause 15.8/9 Claim Procedure in Respect of General Insurance Policy, the claim is to be settled/ rejected within 30 Page 1 of 5 days of its receipt. Please inform:
(i) Whether the claim of the Insured has been settled/rejected within 30 days of its receipt.
(ii) Who are the concerned authorities responsible for violation of terms and conditions of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (Protection of Policy holder's Interest) Regulation, 2017, Clause 15.8/9 Claim Procedure in Respect of General Insurance Policy?
(iii) What actions had been taken by the concerned authorities, for violation of terms and conditions of the Insurance Regulatory And Development Authority of India (Protection of Policy holder's Interest) Regulation, 2017, Clause 15.8 Claim Procedure in Respect of General Insurance Policy.
(iv) If no action had been taken what the reason for the same."
2. The CPIO responded on 18-06-2019. The appellant filed the first appeal dated 12-07-2019 which was not disposed of by the first appellate authority. Thereafter, he filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 and also to direct him to provide the sought for information.
Hearing:
3. The appellant, Mr. Bhaskar Roy attended the hearing through audio conferencing. Mr. A. B. Sarkar, CPIO participated in the hearing representing the respondent through audio conferencing. The written submissions are taken on record.
4. The appellant stated that he is authorized by M/s Phoenix Overseas Ltd and therefore, the exemption claimed by the CPIO u/Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 is not applicable in this case. He apprised the Commission that he had also enclosed a copy of the authority letter issued from M/s Phoenix Overseas Ltd. He limited his submissions to providing the copy of the order of the competent authority including the notesheets pertaining to settlement of the insurance claim of M/s Phoenix Overseas Ltd.
5. The respondent contended that the appellant is seeking third party personal information regarding the Machinery Breakdown Policy No. 150700/44/17/10000008 availed by M/s Phoenix Overseas Ltd and therefore, they have claimed exemption u/Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.Page 2 of 5
Decision:
6. This Commission observes that M/s Phoenix Overseas Ltd being a separate legal entity cannot seek information on its own accord as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 and therefore, the appellant has sought information on behalf of M/s Phoenix Overseas Ltd in representative capacity which is being upheld as far as information about the said company is concerned. In view of this, the CPIO is directed to provide a copy of the order of the competent authority including the notesheets pertaining to the decision taken on the settlement of the insurance claim of M/s Phoenix Overseas Ltd., as per available records, within a period of 30 working days from the date of receipt of this order.
7. However, the CPIO is not supposed to interpret information; or to furnish replies to situational queries; or to furnish clarifications. Hence, the queries seeking answers and explanations from the CPIO are not covered within the definition of 'information' u/Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. 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."
Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract of Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:-
"(j) right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes ........"
In this context, a reference is also made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in CBSE and Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors, 2011 (8) SCC 497,wherein it was held as under:-
35..... "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 Page 3 of 5 should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act."
Similarly, the High Court of Bombay in Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary (School Education) v. The Goa State Information Commission on 3 April, 2008 (2008 (110) Bom L R 1238) had held as under:-
"Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, 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; The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."
8. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
9. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरज कु मार गु ा)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज ा
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक / Date:28-09-2020
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),(011-26105682) Page 4 of 5 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO National Insurance Company Limited, Div.
Managar & CPIO, RTI Cell, Malda Division, 93A, Rabindra Avenue, PO & Distt. Malda, W.B.
2. Bhaskar Roy Page 5 of 5