Central Information Commission
Mrb Ravindran Nayar vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. on 22 July, 2016
Central Information Commission
Room No.307, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
website-cic.gov.in
Appeal No. CIC/MP/A/2016/000585
Appellant : Shri B Ravindran Nayar, Ernakulam
Public Authority : New India Assurance Co Ltd, Kochi
Date of Hearing : July 14, 2016
Date of Decision : July 22, 2016
Present:
Appellant : Present - through VC
Respondent : Shri James Paul, Dy Manager and Ms Preetha S, RM &
CPIO - through VC
RTI application : 02.03.2015
CPIO's reply : 29.05.2015
First appeal : 05.06.2015
FAA's order : --
Second appeal : 19.02.2016
ORDER
1. Shri B Ravindran Nayar, the appellant, sought the xerox copies of the complete final survey report, any addendum issued to the survey report and the working notes of the claim from the branch, regional office and head office of New India Assurance Co Ltd with reference to the settlement of an insurance claim pertaining to the dacoity in their branch in Rohini Sector.
2. The CPIO provided the copy of the final survey report along with the addendum report in 11 pages and denied the rest of the information sought taking exemptions u/s 8(1)(d). dissatisfied, the appellant approached the first appellate authority stating that the company had provided the survey report given by an outside agency and concealed the details to be provided by the company itself, while adding that the exemption u/s 8(1)(d) was not relevant to the matter. Not quite satisfied with the response of the FAA, the appellant came before the Commission in appeal stating that the working notes of the claim settlement branch, regional office and head office had not been provided to him, classifying this information as exempt u/s 8(1)(d). The insurance company had settled the case for Rs. 72.49 lakh instead of Rs. 123.49 lakh without assigning any reason which can only be revealed only by obtaining the working notes regarding the claim.
3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant reiterated the position that he had received the survey and addendum report but his grievance was regarding the working notes regarding the claim settlement which had been denied to him u/s 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. The respondents stated that they had denied internal notes u/s 8(1)(d) and the disclosure of the working notes would affect the competitive position of the company. They had, however, informed the appellant as to how the amount of claim had been arrived at. They added that the claim was sanctioned based on the severity of the warranty violations and this position had been conveyed to the appellant.
4. The Commission observes that the respondents have provided the survey and addendum reports and also the reason of the compromised claim sanction. The CPIO is, however, directed to provide a copy of the relevant portion of the note sheet regarding the claim keeping the provisions of section 10(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 in view. The appeal is disposed of.
(Manjula Prasher) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(T.K. Mohapatra) Deputy Registrar Tele No. 011-26105027 Copy to :
The Central Public Information Officer The First Appellate Authority New India Assurance Co Ltd New India Assurance Co Ltd Regional Office (760000) Head Office, 87, MG Road 36/707, Kandamkulthy Towers Fort, Mumbai-400023 MG Road, Kochi-682011 Shri B Ravindran Nayar Muthoot Finance Ltd Muthoot Chambers Kurien Tower, Banerji Road Ernakulam - 682018