Central Information Commission
Mr.Dilip Shrishrimal vs Export Credit Guarantee Corporation Of ... on 21 January, 2013
Central Information Commission
Room No. 305, 2nd Floor, 'B' Wing, August Kranti Bhavan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi110066
Web: www.cic.gov.in Tel No: 26167931
Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/001500
Dated: 21.01.2013
Name of Appellant : Shri Dilip Shrishrimal
Name of Respondent : Export Credit Guarantee Corp. of
India Ltd., Indore
Date of Hearing : 16.01.2013
ORDER
Shri Dilip Shrishrimal, hereinafter called the appellant, has filed the present appeal dated 13.3.2012 before the Commission against the respondent Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. (ECGC), Indore for providing incomplete information in reply to his RTI-application dated 19.12.2011. The appellant was heard through audio whereas the respondent were represented by Shri Vilas Jare, AGM and Shri Suneel Kumar, Manager.
2. The appellant through his RTI application dated 19.12.2011 sought information on the following seven queries: "(1) ECGC Procedure of putting names in Special Approval List (SAL) after receipt of Report of Default by concerned banks; (2) ECGC procedure of approaching concerned Bank and concerned Company (along with Director/Guarantor) to settle the dues, before and after placing the names in SAL; (3) ECGC procedure of removing names of Company, its Director and Guarantors from SAL; (4) After receipt of report of Default of KNOIL from SBI/Mahasamund vide letter No. DED/2000-2001/10 dated 10.4.2000, when ECGC approached concerned Bank, concerned 2 Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/001500 Company and its Director, Guarantors to settle the due; (5) After receipt of report of Default from SBI/Bhopal vide its letter No. IFB/BPL/AMT/30 dated 30.4.2000. When ECGC approached concerned Bank, concerned Company and its Director, Guarantors to settle the due; (6) Since the name of KNOIL and Crystal its Guarantor, Directors, still in SAL of ECGC since year 2000, what steps taken by ECGC and SBI to remove the names from SAL, knowing that SBI sold those A/c's KNOIL & CRPL to Kotak Mahindra Banks (KMBL) in 2006; and (7) Provide us copies of correspondences from ECGC to SBI and KMBL after 2006 to claim balance amount or remove names from SAL since both the accounts were settled by Banks". The CPIO vide letter No. ECGC/Indore/RTI/2011-12 dated 19.1.2012 provided information on Point No. 1 to 3 of the RTI application and denied information on Point No. 4 to 7 under the provisions of Section 8(1)(d) and (e) of the RTI Act.
3. Aggrieved with the reply of the CPIO on query No. 4 to 7 of the RTI application, the appellant preferred first appeal on 9.2.2012 before the FAA. The FAA vide his order No. RTI/Appeal/Indore/01/2012 dated 5.3.2012 replied to the appellant as follows: "(4) On receipt of report of default as per our laid down procedures, we assess/reassess the risk in order to minimize our losses and accordingly we invite the concerned borrower to call on to discuss the issue. On receipt of report of default under ECIB cover issued to SBI, a communication dated 26.4.2000 was issued to M/s. K.N. Oil Industries Ltd. A copy of the same is enclosed for your reference; (5) On receipt of report of default as per our laid down procedures, we assess/reassess the risk in order to minimize our losses and accordingly we invite the concerned borrower to call on to discuss the issue. On receipt of Report of Default from SBI, IFB, Bhopal a communication dated 13.4.2000 was issued to M/s. Crystal Resources Pvt. Ltd.; (6) It may be noted that ECGC does not take any step on its own with regard to the removal from SAL. The same needs to be initiated by the Exporter or the Bank; and (7) The correspondence from ECGC for recovery of balance amount constitutes information/documents of commercial confidentiality and is therefore, exempted 3 Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/001500 from disclosure to any third party in pursuance of clauses (d) and (e) of sub- Section(1) of Section 8 of the RTI Act. As regards removal of name from SAL no correspondence was made from ECGC".
4. During the hearing the respondent submit that the background of the case is that the ECGC provide insurance covers to banks against non-payment of finances taken by the borrowers/clients of the Banks, the contract is between the Bank and the ECGC. In this case, the appellant was one of the Directors in the firm K.N. Oil Industries Ltd and personal guarantor to the bank in the case of Crystal Resources Pvt. Ltd. Whenever the insurer Bank reports default by a firm to ECGC, due notice is sent to the Management of the firm as well as the guarantors and they are given an opportunity of being heard. In this case, since the appellant was Director/Guarantor in the said firms, in respect f whom the insurer Bank had reported default, the names of those firms as well as the appellant was placed in the SAL maintained by ECGC for mitigating its own risk, which only means that an Insurer Bank has to take proper specific approval of ECGC in case the name of the firm or the persons to whom the bank intends to grant advances and also intends of those finances to be covered under ECGC's Insurance Cover, is in the SAL.
5. The appellant who was heard through audio, submits that he is not satisfied with the replies provided to Point No. 4 and 7 of his RTI application. He submits that on Point No. 4 of the RTI application that due process has not been followed by ECGC before placing his name in SAL. He submits that the ECGC did not issue him a notice before placing his name in the SAL. However, the respondent submit that copies of letters 13.4.2000 and 26.4.2000 were marked to the appellant. The appellant admits to have received copies of these letters under RTI but he, however states that the same were not received by him earlier and neither have the respondent provided any proof of dispatch. The Commission hereby directs the CPIO to provide proof of dispatch of the said 4 Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/001500 letters as per record, if any, to the appellant within two weeks of receipt of this order.
6. It is the further contention of the appellant that requested information on Point No. 7 of the RTI application has not been provided i.e. copies of the correspondence between ECGC, SBI and K.N. Oil Industries Ltd. after 2006 to claim balance amount or to remove name from the SAL, since both accounts were settled by Bank. The FAA in response to this query held that the correspondence from ECGC for recovery of balance amount constitutes information/documents of commercial confidentiality and therefore, exempted from disclosure to any third partying pursuance of Section 8(1)(d) and (e) of the RTI Act. Moreover the respondent during the hearing state that ECGC had paid claims worth Rs. 2.02 crores on 18.1.2002 to the SBI due to default of Crystal Resources Pvt. Ltd and a claim amount worth Rs. 25,33,000 was paid to SBI on 30.1.2002 due to default by K.N. Oil Industries Ltd and the said claims are yet to be recovered in full from the Bank.
7. The Commission vide its order dated 21.9.2011 in an identical petition filed by Smt. Seema Newar Vs. ECGC (Case No. CIC/SS/A/2011/000704) held as follows:
"The ECGC perform many functions such as providing a range of credit risk insurance cover to exporters against loss in export of goods and services, offers guarantees to banks and financial institutions to enable exporters to obtain better facilities from them and provides Overseas Investment Insurance to Indian Companies investing in joint ventures abroad in the form of equity or loan. The premium or any amount received by the ECGC from the Bank of Rajasthan under the insurance contract is information which is only privy to the parties to the contract of insurance. As an insurer to banks, the ECGC offers guarantees to banks and financial institutions to enable exporters to obtain better facilities from them. As an insurer to exporters, the ECGC offers insurance protection to exporters against payment risk, provides guidance in export-related activities, makes available information on different countries with its own credit ratings, makes it easy to obtain export finance from banks/financial institutions, assists exporters in recovering bad debts and provides information on credit-worthiness of overseas buyers. Thus, the contract of insurance entered between ECGC and the Banks is entirely different from the one entered between the ECGC and the exporters. Clearly, the information which is part of the insurance contract entered into between ECGC and the Bank of Rajasthan is privy only to 5 Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/001500 these parties and not to the appellant. The appellant has simply taken a loan from the Bank in the name of her firm and has taken credit risk insurance cover from ECGC. Similarly, the Bank of Rajasthan has taken an insurance cover from the ECGC under which it pays premium of the ECGC. If the appellant is interested in knowing the details of amount debited as premium paid to the respondent corporation specifically from his firm's loan account in the Bank of Rajasthan, then the appropriate authority to seek such information from is the Bank of Rajasthan itself. Therefore, the Commission is of the view that the information sought by the appellant is clearly exempted from disclosure under section 8(1) (d) and (e) of the RTI Act."
8. Consistent with the ratio in the aforementioned decision of the Commission, the correspondence between ECGC and Bank is exempted under the provisions of Section 8(1) (d) & (e) of the RTI Act.
The matter is disposed of with the above observations/directions.
(Sushma Singh) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(K.K. Sharma) OSD & Deputy Registrar Address of the parties:
Shri Dilip Shrishrimal, 213, Station Road, Mahasamund-493445 (Chattisgarh).
The CPIO, Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd., Indore Branch, 408, City Centre, 4th Floor, 570, M.G. Road, Indore-452001.
The First Appellate Authority, Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd., The Metropolitan, 7th Floor, Plot No. C-26/27, "E" Bloc, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandara (E), 6 Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/001500 Mumbai-400051.