Central Information Commission
Shri Prakash C. Seth vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. on 28 October, 2009
dsUnzh; lwpuk vk;ksx
Central Information Commission
*****
Case Nos. CIC/AT/A/2009/000618 &
CIC/AT/C/2009/000536
Dated: 28th October, 2009
Appellant-Complainant : Shri Prakash C. Seth Respondents : United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
This 2nd-appeal-cum-comlaint dated 26.12.2008 is filed by Shri Prakash C. Seth of Mumbai against United India Insurance Co. Ltd. regarding delay in compliance of Commission's order dated 21.8.2008 in Case No. CIC/AT/A/2008/000524 by the Appellate Authority, relating to his RTI-request dated 18.1.2008.
2. Background of the case is as under:
(1) Shri Prakash C Seth had filed an RTI-request dated 18.1.2008 seeking the following information from CPIO, United India Insurance Co. Ltd Nagpur:
"With reference to the Consumer Complaint No.117/2005 before the Yavatmal District Consumer Forum and First Appeal no. 2404/2006 before the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, both filed by Smt. Kantaben Mohanlal Kotecha against your company, please provide me the following information:
i) Copies of;
the complaint no.117/2005 filed by Smt. Kantaben, the Written Statement, if any, filed by your company therein, the order/judgement passed by the Yavatmal Forum in the said case, the schedule of the Private Motor Package Policy issued in the said case, the First Appeal No. 2404/2005 filed by Smt. Kantaben, and the Reply/ Written statement/compilation, if any, filed by your company in the said appeal,
ii) Please inform as to whether your company has paid the contested PA claim lodged for the accidental death of deceased Mr. Atul Kotecha in the said case. If yes, when.
iii) Please inform as the whether your company has preferred an Appeal/ Revision against the order dated 6.11.2006 issued by the State Commission in Appeal no. 2404/.2005. If yes, please give necessary particulars of the same, including the particulars of 'stay', if any, granted by such higher forum over the implementation of the impugned order. Please also state the current status of the said Appeal/Revision."
Shri Prakash C. Seth Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.: Case Nos. A-9/618 & C-9/536 Page 1 of 4(2) Vide his letter dated 19.2.2008, CPIO denied the information stating "The information sought by you is not readily available with us and you may collect the said information from respective forum."
(3) Since the CPIO in his reply dated 19.2.2008 did not mention the name and address of the designated Appellate Authority (AA), the appellant filed his first-appeal dated 7.3.2008 before the CPIO for onward transmission to AA.
(4) Instead of transferring the appellant's first-appeal to the designated AA, vide his letter dated 12.3.2008 the CPIO himself replied to appellant's first-appeal.
(5) Shri Prakash C. Sheth filed this second appeal-cum-complaint dated 30.4.2008 before the Commission against the reply dated 12.3.2008 of CPIO.
(6) In the matter, Commission passed an Order dated 21.8.2008 in Case No. CIC/AT/A/2008/524. The appeal was remitted back to AA with the direction to give hearing to the appellant and pass an speaking order, within 4 weeks of the receipt of the Order. It was also directed that while considering the first appeal, AA should also give his definitive finding on the following points:
i) Why the CPIO had failed to give name and address of AA in his reply dt.
19.2.2008 in reply to RTI-request dated 18.1.2008 ?
ii) When the first-appeal was preferred before CPIO for onward transmission to AA, CPIO instead transferring the same to AA, had himself adjudicated and decided the said first appeal.
(7) The appellant was advised that if he was not satisfied with AA's decision he can file 2nd-appeal before the Commission, along with complaint, if any.
2. In his petition dated 11.11.2008, appellant Shri Prakash C Seth stated that AA did not dispose of his 1st appeal despite Commission's order No. CIC/AT/A/2008/000524 dated 21.8.2008. Appellant therefore, requested that appropriate action be taken against AA. However, in his subsequent petition dated 22.11.2008, the appellant stated that the 1st appeal had been disposed of by AA vide order dated 22.10.2008. However, he alleged that the orders of AA were backdated and also mentioned that:
i) In reply to his RTI application dated 18.1.2008, CPIO, in his communication dated 19.2.2008, did not furnish name and address of AA for filing 1st appeal. This can not be due to oversight since CPIO had declined to disclose the information by citing section 8(1)(d).
ii) His first-appeal dated 7.3.2008 was replied by CPIO treating it as a letter and not as first-appeal u/s 19(1). This should have been disposed of by AA. CPIO dealt with his first-appeal without have any statutory powers.
iii) He therefore, requested that CPIO should be suitably penalized.Shri Prakash C. Seth Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.: Case Nos. A-9/618 & C-9/536 Page 2 of 4
3. Pursuant to Commission's notice dated 21.8.2009, matter was heard on 10.9.2009 through video conferencing (VC). Appellant was present at NIC studio at Mumbai; while on behalf of respondents Shri P.M. Jaikar, CPIO was present at NIC V C facility at Nagpur.
4. Appellant re-iterated that AA did not decide the matter within 4 weeks as directed by the Commission. According to him, even the hearing notice itself was sent after 4 weeks and orders were passed by AA in November and not in October. He further stated that AA's findings were wrong. CPIO had himself decided the appeal and thus, Commission's order were taken lightly.
5. CPIO Shri P.M. Jaikar, who also represented the AA, informed that at that time Shri Khandekar was the CPIO and he had been retired.
6. During the course of hearing, Commission directed the CPIO to furnish the written submissions on the following points:
i) Why the 1st appeal dt. 7.03.2008 of the appellant was disposed of by the CPIO himself instead of transferring the same to the designated AA?
ii) Why CPIO had failed to give name and address of the designated AA in his first reply dt. 19.02.2008 in response to appellant's RTI request dt:
18.01.2008.
iii) Why the designated AA had passed speaking order after the stipulated period of four weeks of the receipt of Order dt. 21.08.2008 of the Commission and even passed backdated order ?
7. In his written submissions, present CPIO Shri P.M. Jaikar explained as under:
i) On receipt of the first appeal dated 07.03.2008, the then CPIO Mr. Khandre felt that the contents of his reply dated: 19.2.2008 were not sufficient and thus, detailed reply was given vide letter dt. 12.3.2008, duly informing the address of the Appellate Authority. The then CPIO had sent a reply dt. 12.03.2008 only with the intention of clarifying the position. He had not decided the appeal but only the RTI-application.
ii) Over this point/issue, the then CPIO Shri Khandare agreed that it was a lapse on his part in not furnishing the name and address of AA in his first reply dt.19.2.2008 and regretted for the same. CPIO ensured that the name and address of AA would be furnished in all such cases in future.
iii) In the RTI-application, the appellant had asked for information relating to Nagpur Regional Office; while the first-appeal was to be disposed of by AA based in Chennai office. For disposal of the appeal, AA had to collect the entire Shri Prakash C. Seth Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.: Case Nos. A-9/618 & C-9/536 Page 3 of 4 information from Nagpur Regional Office. Information was received by the office of AA on 14.10.2008 and thereafter AA disposed of the appeal on 22.10.2008. As such, there was no intentional delay on the part of the AA.
With regard to the delayed receipt of the reply dated 22.10.2008 of AA by the applicant, CPIO stated that the reply dated 22.10.2008 was dispatched by Speed Post on 28.10.2008. For this he, enclosed a proof of dispatch. He therefore, stated that there was no backdating of Order by AA, as was alleged by the appellant.
Decision & observations:
8. On hearing oral submissions of both the parties and on perusal of written submissions of CPIO, it is clear that the then CPIO Shri P.K. Khandare, Manager had not indicated the name and address of AA in his reply dated 19.2.2008 and subsequently replied to the first-appeal dated 7.3.2009 through his communication dated 12/13.3.2008. Even, the designated AA did not comply with the Commission's directions given in Order dated 21.8.2008 in Case No. CIC/AT/A/2008/000524, within the prescribed time limit of 4 weeks.
9. However, I did not find any mala-fide intention on the part of the then CPIO Shri P.K. Khandare. Vide his subsequent reply dated 12/13.3.2008, as a supplement to his earlier reply dated 19.2.2008, he tried to clarify the issue to the appellant in detail and also indicated the name and address of AA. Since Shri Khandare, the then CPIO has already retired from the service, no purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings against him in the matter.
10. It is also observed that in compliance of Commission's decision dated 21.8.2008, AA disposed of the appeal on 22.10.2008 and he furnished item-wise information to the appellant. As the AA had to collect the information from the Regional Office, Nagpur, there was delay in compliance of the Commission's directions. As did not back date his order as alleged by the appellant. Nevertheless, AA should have ensured the timely compliance of the directions of the Commission. Given the circumstances of the case, Commission would not like to initiate proceedings under section 20 of the RTI Act. However, AA is warned to be more careful in future while complying with the directions of the Commission. Any such lapse would be viewed seriously.
11. Matter is disposed of accordingly.
12. Copies of the decision be sent to the parties.
Sd/-
(A. N. Tiwari) Information Commissioner.
Shri Prakash C. Seth Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.: Case Nos. A-9/618 & C-9/536 Page 4 of 4