Central Information Commission
Mrsanjit vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 25 September, 2014
Central Information Commission
Room No.307, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New
Delhi110066
websitecic.gov.in
Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2013/002452/MP
Appellant : Shri Sanjit, Sonepat
Public Authority : LIC of India, Rohtak
Date of Hearing : 17 September 2014
Date of Decision : 25 September 2014
Appellant : Shri Sanjit
accompanied by Shri Rajinder Kumar
t
hrough VC from Sonepat
Respondent : Shri R C Mathur,
DM (Legal) & Ms. Indumati Jain,
Manager (CRM)/CPIO
ORDER
1. The appellant, Shri Sanjit, submitted RTI application dated 24 June 2013 before the Public Information Officer/Deputy Commissioner, Sonepat which was sent by the PIO and Dy. Commissioner to the Manager LIC Sonepat on 26.6.2013 seeking information regarding details of recorded conversation held at Sonepat branch on 10.6.2013 at 4.30 pm etc., through a total of 1 point.
2. Vide reply dated 2 August 2013, the CPIO returned the application to the appellant on ground that no postal order were enclosed even though the appellant has mentioned the IPO number in the application. Not satisfied with response of the CPIO, the appellant preferred appeal dated 19 August 2013 before the first appellate authority (FAA) stating that he had not been provided the information sought. Vide letter dated 5 September 2013, the first appeal was transferred to the first 1 CIC/DS/A/2013/002452/MP appellate authority. No final order has been passed in this case. The appellant filed the second appeal before the Central Information Commission.
3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant submitted that he had contacted the Branch Manager on 10.6.2013 at 4.30 pm and recorded his conversation with the branch manager regarding Ms. Neelam Sharma having been working in their department. The respondents submitted that they had already informed the appellant that there is no employee by the name of Neelam Sharma in their office. They also stated that they do not maintain any record of conversations as alleged by the appellant.
5. The Commission directs the respondents to confirm the position that there is no employee by the name of Neelam Sharma in their office after checking the records form department within seven days from the receipt of the order of the Commission. The appeal is disposed of.
(Manjula Prasher) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(T.K.Mohapatra) Dy. Secretary & Dy. Registrar Ph. No. 01126105027 2 CIC/DS/A/2013/002452/MP