Central Information Commission
Mrsurender Singh Negi Fwd Sic Uk vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. on 3 August, 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/2016/000653
Appellant : Shri Suresh Singh Negi, Chamoli
Public Authority : National Insurance Co Ltd , Rishikesh/Dehradun
Date of Hearing : July 22, 2016
Date of Decision : August 3, 2016
Present:
Appellant : Not present.
Respondent : Shri D.S. Rawat, Branch Manager & CPIO - through VC
RTI application : 02.09.2015
CPIO's reply : 29.09.2015
First appeal : 14.10.2015
FAA's order : 24.11.2015
Second appeal : 20.01.2016
ORDER
1. Shri Suresh Singh Negi, the appellant, sought to know as to which documents were required for the insurance of JCB machine; the floater risk involved in the policy and the meaning of STFI; the basis on which the company accepts the insurance of JCB machine which is not registered for a long time, etc through seven points.
2. The CPIO informed the appellant that the information sought in point 1 to 5 was not specific. He enclosed the copy of the letter asked for through point 6 of the RTI application and also provided the name and address of the first appellate authority as sought in point 7. Dissatisfied with the reply, the appellant appealed to the first appellate authority repeating five points of his RTI application. The FAA informed him that he upheld the CPIO's decision with reference to first three points of the RTI application as the appellant had not mentioned the details of the insured article and he advised the CPIO to provide the response to point 4 and 5 of the RTI application. In compliance with the FAA's order, the CPIO informed him that the contractors' plant and machinery policy was issued for work site, therefore, no correspondence is made for its registration or otherwise. He also mentioned that in the contractors' plant and machinery policy, the company could not force the insured for registration. The registration depends on the insured himself. The company, however, intimates if the policy was rejected. The appellant, thereafter, approached the State Information Commission, Uttarakhand, Dehradun, who vide letter dated 2.2.2016, transferred the appeal to the Commission.
3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant was not present in spite of a notice of hearing having been sent to him. The respondents stated that the appellant had not asked for any specific information and even the subject was not mentioned very clearly. Yet they had attempted to provide the information to the appellant from what they could make out from the RTI application. The CPIO had also complied with the directions of the FAA and provided the information on point 4 and 5 of the RTI application. The rest of the points were more in the nature of hypothetical queries. They added that even for JCB machines, there were two kinds of forms to be submitted, one for those registered with RTO and the other kind for those not registered with the RTO. Therefore, the information sought was not specific and they would not be able to provide any information. The appellant was not present to either clarify as to what exactly he wanted or point out any shortcomings.
4. On hearing the respondents and going through the record, the Commission finds that the respondents have provided information where that was specific in the RTI application and as available with them. 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 Haridwar Road, Kohli Hospital Regional Office Rishikesh (Uttarakhand) 56, Jai Plaza, Rajpur Road Dehradun-248001 Shri Suresh Singh Negi M/s Prayag Construction Site & Post : Gairsain Distt Chamoli (Uttarakhand)