Central Information Commission
Hitesh Khanna vs The New India Assurance Company Ltd. on 18 July, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/NIACL/A/2023/138979
Hitesh Khanna .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
The New India Assurance
Company Limited Mumbai
Regional Office -1, New India
Bhawan, 2nd Floor, 34/38, Bank
Street, Fort, Mumbai - 400023 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 08.07.2025
Date of Decision : 17.07.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 25.07.2023
CPIO replied on : 11.08.2023
First appeal filed on : 11.08.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 24.08.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 25.08.2023
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 25.07.2023 (online) seeking the following information:Page 1 of 6
"THIS IS IN REGARD TO YOUR LETTER WITH REF.NO. 46/210428 DATED 28TH MARCH 2022 TO NSIC NEW DELHI,I SEEK ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, BEING THE OWNER OF THE SAID CONTAINERS. THE SAID GOODS WERE LYING FOR RE-EXPORTS.
THE REASON FOR NO CLAIM WAS THAT THE REASON OF LOSS WAS NOT EXPLAINED,-DID ANY REMINDERS WERE SENT REGARDING THE SAME.
WERE THERE ANY OTHER REASONS FOR NO CLAIM.
WERE THE RESPONSES TO YOUR QUERIES REPLIED ON TIME BY THE INSURED.
HOW MANY REMINDERS WERE SENT TO THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE FOR THE STATUS OF THE CLAIMS BY THE INSURED.
DID THE INSURED TOOK RESPONSIBILITY OF GOODS LYING IN THEIR CUSTODY.
WAS THOROUGH INVESTIGATION DONE ON THE CASE.
WAS CRFP INVESTIGATED BEING THE SECURITY RESPONSIBLE AND MANAGING INCOMING AND OUTGOING OF GOODS.
WAS COMPLETE CASE HISTORY WAS PROVIDED."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 11.08.2023 stating as under:
"We have received your online RTI application TNIAC/R/E/23/00265 dated 25.07.2023 seeking information under Right to Information Act, 2005.
Information Sought by you: Quote This is in regard to your letter with REF.NO. 46/210428 dated 28th March 2022 to NSIC New Delhi, I seek additional information, Being the owner of the said containers. The said goods were lying for Re-exports. The reason for no claim was that the reason of loss was not explained, Did any reminders were sent regarding the same. Were there any other reasons for no claim. Were the responses to your queries replied on time by the insured. How many reminders were sent to the The New India Assurance for the status of the claims by the insured. Did the insured took responsibility of goods lying in Page 2 of 6 their custody. Was thorough investigation done on the case. Was CRFP investigated being the security responsible and managing incoming and outgoing of goods. Was complete case history was provided. Unquote The information sought falls under section 8 (1)(d) of exemption list hence this information cannot be provided."
3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.08.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 24.08.2023, upheld the reply of CPIO.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Absent Respondent: Ms. Anusha Bambardekar, Manager/CPIO, appeared through video conference.
5. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had filed detailed written submissions dated 08.07.2025 disclosing complete facts of the case and requested the Commission to place the same on record. The relevant paras of the written submission are reproduced as under:
"We are in receipt of online RTI application TNIAC/R/E/23/00265 from Mr. Hitesh Khanna dated 25.07.2023 seeking the following information:
Quote This is in regard to your letter with Ref. No. 46/210428 dated 28th March 2022 to NSIC New Delhi, I seek additional information, being the owner of the said containers. The said goods were lying for re-exports. The reason for no claim was that the reason of loss was not explained, did any reminders were sent regarding the same. Were there any other reasons for no claim. Were the responses to your queries replied on time by the insured. How many reminders were sent to the New India Assurance for the status of the claims by the insured. Did the insured took responsibility of goods lying in their custody. Was thorough investigation done on the case. Was CRPF investigated being the security Page 3 of 6 responsible and managing incoming and outgoing of goods. Was complete case history was provided. Unquote.
In reply to the said application, the following reply was provided to applicant vide our letter dated 11.08.2023:
The information sought falls under section 8(1)(d) of exemption list hence this information cannot be provided.
Not satisfied with the reply provided, complainant had approached First Appellant Authority application TNIAC/A/E/23/00067 dated 11 08.2023 on the following grounds of appeal Refused access to information requested.
The First Appellant Authority passed an order on 23.08.2023 with the following observations The information sought falls under section 8(1)(d) of exemption list, Section 8(1)(d) reads as follows "Information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information.
The details of claim no. 11180046212490000423 are as follows Policy No.: 11180046212400000001 Insured: M/s. CONCOR (Container Corporation of India Limited), New Delhi Date of transit of consignment started: dated 22/12/2017 Date of arrival of consignment at destination: dated 01/01/2018 & 11/01/2018 ICD TKD/Port Date of application of survey: dated 23/09/2021 by mail from CONCOR Attributed cause and nature of damages:Page 4 of 6
Loss was suspected due to change of safety seal during transit enroute from Sri lanka to Khari Baoli Via ICD TKD Port. The carrying container No. CRXU3216975 & CRXU3255533 were received at ICD TKD Port via Nhava Sheva (NSP) and completing train journey Ex NSP to TKD on 01/01/2018 & 11/01/2018 with intact safety seals. Such seals were checked at that time and no claim for shortage or damages were noted at that time (In Year 2017/2018-3/4 years back-Bill of Entry no. 4624299 dated 30/12/2017 and AWB dated 23/12/2017).
These shipments could not be cleared as FSSAI did not allow the goods to be imported (exact reasons are unknown). As such these goods were kept stored since Year 2018 till 29/09/2021 after initial inspection someone allowed new seals to be imported on the containers Finally clearance was not given by FSSAI as at a later date the goods expired and the containers were scheduled to go back to the consignor. For return, the containers were checked for weight and extensive shortages were noticed Hence the claim was lodged upon the CONCOR. After long time on 23/09/2021, the seals were checked The new seals installed were intact but when the containers were opened almost all of the material was missing and rest damaged/expired. This was unexplainable for various reasons yet the police complaint for shortage material was lodged on 21/10/2021 The reported damaged material was not taken custody by the consignee and no further claim has been lodged for damages Damaged goods needed to be destroyed as they were already expired in year 2019. However, the claim stands for only the shortages mainly Hence the information sought falls under section 8(1)(j) and 8(1)(d) of exemption list under RTI Act 2005."
6. The Commission noted that proof of having served a copy of his Second Appeals on the Respondent have not been uploaded by the Appellant while filing the same before the Commission. On a query, the Respondent confirms non-service.
Decision:
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the Respondent and perusal of the records, noted that the information sought by the Appellant pertains to a third-party insurance claim involving a public sector undertaking and contains commercial evaluations, Page 5 of 6 internal assessments, and claim processing history. Under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, information including commercial confidence or trade secrets is exempt from disclosure unless a larger public interest is established. In this case, no such public interest has been demonstrated by the Appellant.
8. Furthermore, since the Appellant is not the policyholder or an authorised representative of the insured party, disclosure of claim-specific documents would amount to a breach of fiduciary relationship under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. The Appellant neither filed any written objection nor presented himself before the Commission to controvert the averments made by the Respondent and further agitate the matter. The submissions made by the Respondent were taken on record. In the absence of any overriding public interest and considering the submissions made by the Respondent Authorities, the Commission finds no reason to interfere in this matter.
The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA The New India Assurance Company Limited Mumbai Regional Office -1, New India Bhawan, 2nd Floor, 34/38, Bank Street, Fort, Mumbai - 400023 Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)