Central Information Commission
Mr.Mr.Ravi Kumar Potdar vs The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. on 22 February, 2013
Central Information Commission Room No. 308, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066 File No:CIC/DS/A/2013/002244/LS In the RTI application dated 21.12.2010, the appellant had sought certified copies of the Claims Nos. 151301/11/2000/1374, 1382, 1385 and 1386, purported to have fraudulently paid by OICL to Shri Nathji & Co. Besides, he had also sought to know the case number of the matter pending in the M.P. State Consumer Commission, Bhopal, etc.
2. In his letter dated 17.02.2011, the CPIO had informed the appellant that the claim numbers given by him did not pertain to the Company. On appeal, the AA in letter dated 25.03.2011 had mentioned that the correct number of the claim was 11/2000/10 but had refused to disclose this information u/s 8(1)(b) of the RTI Act for the reason that the matter was sub judice.
3. Suffice to say that filing of a claim and its acceptance by OICL is a matter between them. The appellant is a third party and has no claim to the requested documents. Exception, however, could be made in exceptional circumstances where there is evidence of overwhelming fraud resulting from connivance between the parties. The appellant has simply made a bland allegation of fraud and has proferred no evidence to substantiate it. It would, thus, appear that he is seeking third party information to which he is not entitled u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. I may, however, add that the AA was wrong in denying information u/s 8(1)(b) as there was no court order prohibiting disclosure of information. Anyway, the end result remains the same. The appellant is not entitled to this information. The appeal, therefore, is dismissed.
File No:CIC/DS/A/2011/0022253/LS
4. In the RTI application dated 22.12.2010, the appellant had sought certified copies of the following Claims Nos :-
• JPA/302/47/99/0004 (Rajinder Kumar Jain • JPA/302/47/00/001 (Sheel Kumar Jain)
5. Shri Satyanarayan submits that this matter has already been decided by this Commission in order dated 22.06.2010 in File No.CIC/AT/A/2008/00025/DA.
6. The said order is perused. It is a case of res-judicata. Dismissed.
File No:CIC/DS/A/2011/002586/LS
7. In the RTI application dated 23.11.2010, the appellant had sought the following information :
i) (a) Payments made to Adv Ravinder Singh Chhabra case-wise;
(b) Certified copies of the bills submitted to OICL;
(c) Certified copies of the payment vouchers.
ii) Cases entrusted to Adv Chhabra by OICL relating to MACT court
iii) Reasons for non appearance of Chief Regional Manager before the Indore Court on 16.11.2010, etc.
8. The CPIO had responded to it vide letter 06.12.2010 informing the appellant that he had issued notice to Adv Chhabra u/s 11 of the RTI Act and the latter had not agreed to the disclosure of this information. The CPIO refused to disclose this information u/s 8(1)(d) if the RTI Act The AA, in order 17.2.2011, had upheld the order of the CPIO u/s 8(1)(b)
9. In my opinion, both the CPIO and AA have not decided the case correctly and their orders are not sustainable in law. First and foremost the application of section 8(1)(b) of the RTI Act is not justified in the facts of the case. There are no orders of the court to forbid disclosure of information.
10. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the following order is passed:
a) The appellant has not prescribed the time frame for which he is seeking the information. The CPIO is, therefore, directred to provide requested information for two calendar years i.e. 2010 and 2011 regarding the fee paid to Adv Chhabra, case wise;
b) However, copies of the payment vouchers need not be provided;
c) Information regarding the number of cases entrusted to Adv Chhabra may be supplied.
File No:CIC/DS/A/2011/002600/LS
11. In the RTI application dated 26.11.2011, the appellant had sought information about the fee paid to various lawyers in MCRC No. 2777/2006 and MCRC No.54/2007. Besides, he had also sought copies of the payment vouchers etc.
12. Vide letter dated 29.12.2010, the CPIO had refused to disclose this information on the ground that this was third party information. On appeal, the AA had upheld the order of the CPIO vide letter dated 28.02.2011.
13. The fee has been paid to the lawyers out of the funds of OICL. I, therefore, find no justification in non disclosure of this information to the appellant. In the premises, it is ordered that the fees paid to the lawyer(s) in the above mentioned cases may be supplied to the appellant. However, copies of the payment vouchers need not be supplied.
File No.CIC/DS/A/2012/000169/LS
14. In the RTI application dated 11.08.2011, the appellant had sought the following information :-
a) copies of his own CRs for the years 1991 to 2002 along with connected documents; &
b) whether any memo or warning was issued to him during the period 1991 to 2000.
15. The CPIO, vide letter dated 16.09.201,1 had mentioned that the ACR of the appellant for the year 2000 only had been traced out and rest of the ACRs could not be traced out. As regards, issue of memo or warning to him, the appellant was informed that three letters were traced out.
16. During the hearing, Shri Satyanarayan submits that whatever information was available has already been supplied to the appellant.
17. The CPIO is hereby directed to make fresh efforts to trace out the appellant's ACRs and outcome thereof may be supplied to him in due course.
File No:CIC/DS/A/2012/000178/LS
18. Vide RTI application dated 07.09.2011, the appellant had sought the following information :
a) certified copy of the Policy issued to Texmo Pipes and Products Ltd (TPPL) by the Burhanpur office of the OICL;
b) copy of the claim filed by the aforesaid company with OICL in respect of this Policy; &
c) certified copy of 80% claim passed by the officers of the OICL.
19. The CPIO in letter dated 03.10.2011 had informed the appellant that he had not not mentioned the Policy Number and claim number, due to which the requested information could not supplied to him. On appeal, the AA had upheld the decision of the CPIO in order dated 15.11.2011. Besides, AA had also taken the view that even if the requested information were available, the same was not discloseable under clauses (e) and (j) of section 8(1) of the RTI Act.
20. During the hearing, Shri Satyanarayana fairly submits that it is possible to trace out the Policy in question but the requested information is personal in nature and can not be supplied to the appellant without the consent of the third party i.e. M/s Taxmo Pipes and Products Ltd.
21. In view of the above, the matter is remanded to the CPIO with the direction to follow the procedure prescribed u/s 11(1) of the RTI Act and take appropriate decision afresh in the matter. The appellant, however, will have liberty to move this Commission again if he is not satisfied with the order of the CPIO.
File No:CIC/DS/A2012/000823LS
22. In the RTI application dated 29.9.2011, the appellant had sought the following information :
a) The period of posting of Capt V.K. Singh as Divisional Manager of Gwalior Region;
b) Copies of the tour bills submitted by Capt Singh during the said period.
23. Vide letter dated 21.10.2011, the CPIO had refused to disclose this information. AA, vide order dated 06.02.2012 had upheld the decision of the CPIO .
24. In my opinion, both the CPIO and AA have not decided the case correctly. The posting of an officer at a particular location is in public domain and this information can not but be disclosed. Hence, the CPIO is hereby directed to intimate the time period of the posting of Capt Singh as DM of Gwalior Region
25. However, as regards the supply of copies of the tour bills of said Capt Singh, Shri Satyanarayana submits that Capt Singh remained posted at the Gwalior office for a long time and would have submitted a large number of tour bills to the competent authority. It is his contention that supply of copies of the tour bills at this belated stage would put undue strain on the resources of the OICL.
26. Given the fact that Capt Singh had submitted tour bills for reimbursement, there is no harm in disclosing this information to the appellant. However, since the workload involved is huge, it would be expedient to give inspection of the tour bills of said Capt Singh to the appellant on a mutually convenient date and time at Gwalior. The appellant will have liberty to take photo copies of the documents as per his reqquirement on payment of requisite fee. The matter is decided accordingly.
File No;CIC/DS/A/2012/000832/LS
27. It is noticed that vide RTI application dated 08.11.2011, the appellant had sought the following information :
a) certified copy of the Policy No.2002/1733, Collection No.12443 dated 26.03.2022 issued to M/s Kinetic Motors Ltd. and the connected documents; &
b) certified copy of Policy No.2003/1391, Collection No.11466 dated 25.03.2003 and the connected documents.
28. The CPIO had refused to disclose this information under clauses
(d) & (e) of section 8(1) of the RTI Act vide letter dated 14.12.2011. The grounds for rejection given by the CPIO are as under :-
"Undisputably, the insured M/s Kinetic Motors Co Ltd has been issued a Group Mediclaim Policies by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited. While issuing policies, certain information pertaining to trade secrets instilling reciprocal commercial confidence were shared between the insured and the insurer. The policies were issued by the insurer and purchased by the insured under a bona fide belief that such trade secrets shall not be disclosed. Based on reposition of this commercial confidence, contracts of mediclaim insurance were executed between the insured and insurer. Disclosure of such information and providing of documents sought vide application under reply would not only be a serious breach of commercial confidence reposed by the insured with the insurer but also shatter the mutual understanding between the parties that the trade secrets shall not be disclosed to any one. Thus, the information and the documents sought vide your application dated 14.11.2011 can not be disclosed u/s 8(d) of the RTI Act, 2005.
(ii) The application is also rejected on the ground that the insured has a fiduciary relationship with the insured M/s Kinetic Motor Co Ltd and no larger public interest would be served by disclosure of information or supply of documents sought vide your application. The larger public interest has already been taken care of by the Auditors.
(iii) The application is also rejected on the ground that the disclosure of personal information of the insured M/s Kinetic Motor Co Ltd would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual and there is no public interest of larger public interest involved justifying of such information."
29. On appeal, the AA had affirmed the order of the CPIO vide letter dated 06.02.2012.
30. The appellant is seeking third party information which is personal in nature. The ratio of the Supreme Court decision in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande case squarely applies in this case. I find no infirmity in the decisions of CPIO and AA. The appeal is mis-conceived. Dismissed.
File No.CIC/DS/A/2012/002550/LS
31. Vide RTI application dated 3.07.2012, the appellant had sought the following information :
i) Certified copies of circulars/rules/guidelines issued by OICL regarding purchase of vehicles;
ii) Certified copies of the circulars\rules/guidelines issued by the company regarding sale of salvage material
iii) Copies of the documents relating to auction of salvage vehicles in 2010;
iv) Names and addresses of the persons who purchased the salvage vehicles;
v) Copy of the audit report regarding sale of salvage vechiles; and
vi) Comments of the senior officers of OICL on the audit report in respect of these salvage vehicles.
32. The CPIO had responded to it vide letter dated 02.07.2011 refusing to disclose this information u/s 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. On appeal, the AA vide order dated 22.8.2012 had upheld the order of the CPIO.
33. In my opinion, neither the CPIO nor the AA have passed legally sustainable orders. First and foremost, in paras (i) and (ii) the appellant has sought copies of the rules/guidelines/circulars for sale of vehicles by the company and the auction of salvage of vehicles etc. This information cent- per-cent falls in public domain. It is, therefore, ordered that copies of the rules/guidelines/circulars may be supplied to the appellant in 03 weeks.
34. As regards the information sought by appellant from para (iii) to para
(vi) in my opinion, this information is also disclosebale.
35. However, Shri Satyanarayan submits that supply of this information would put undue strain on the resources of OICL In the premises, it is ordered that the appellant may be given inspection of the entire records requested for in the above paras on a mutually convenient date and time and may be permitted to take extracts therefrom on payment of requisite fee.
( M.L. Sharma ) Information Commissioner Authenticated. Additional copies of the order shall be supplied on application and payment of fees, as per RTI Act, to the CPIO of the Commission.
(K.L.Das) Dy Registrar Address of the Parties : (l)The Reg Manager & CPIO, (2) Shri R.K. Potdar, 72/74, Suyesh Vihar, Oriental Insurance Co Ltd., Bhamori Dube, Nanda Nagar, Reg Office, IDA Building, Indore 452 011 4th floor, 7 Race Course Road, Indore 3 . M.P.