Central Information Commission
Meena Veeraswamy vs Department Of Posts on 2 May, 2022
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/POSTS/A/2021/614508
Meena Veeraswamy ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Department of Posts, O/o the
Supdt. Of Post Offices, RTI Cell,
Manjeri Division, Majeri, Malappuram,
Kerala - 676121. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 28/04/2022
Date of Decision : 28/04/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 05/03/2021
CPIO replied on : 12/03/2021
First appeal filed on : 17/03/2021
First Appellate Authority order : 15/04/2021
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 05.03.2021 seeking the following information;
"NSC NO. 08EE 436074 DATED 10.08.1998 FOR RS.10,000 WITH REGN.NO.109 WAS PURCHASED BY MS.V. KALAVATHI, MY SISTER FROM CALICUT AIRPORT POST OFFICE, MALLAPLURAM DIST, KERALA STATE. SAID NSC, SHE GOT TRANSFERRED TO VILE PARLE, MUMBAI POST OFFICE, 400099 ON 29.07.2004. AM THE NOMINEE IN RESPECT OF THE NSC. MS.V.KALAVATHI IS NO MORE.1
INFORMATION REQUIRED UNDER RTI ACT, 2005 DETAILS OF MATURITY PAYMENT (DATE OF PAYMENT, MODE OF PAYMENT ETC.,) IS REQUIRED IN CONNECTION WITH A CASE REGISTERED AGAINST AND INCLUDING Ms. V. KALAVATHI."
The CPIO denied information to the appellant on 12.03.2021 under section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.03.2021. FAA's order dated 15.04.2021 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: Subramaniam, ASP & Rep. of CPIO present through video- conference.
The Commission remarked at the outset that the Appellant vide written submission dated 12.04.2022 has sought exemption from participating in the hearing owing to her health issues. She further prayed the Commission to decide the case on merits based on the strength of material placed through written submission, relevant extracts of which is as under -
".....In the case, Ms.V.Kalavathi (my widowed sister) was also included as the dependent family member of my husband R.Veeraswamy. Her assets as on 01.01.2005 and 29.02.2008 are included in Statement A and Statement B. Further, some of her income during the period 01.01.2005 to 29.02.2008 is also included in Statement C. It has been observed that CBI has excluded substantial amount of income (through proper channel and banking) of R. Veeraswamy and that of his family members, including my sister Ms.V.Kalavathi.
In his efforts to identify income during the period 01.01.2005 to 29.02.2008, not accounted by CBI in Statement C, R.Veeraswamy has observed that additional income of more than Rs.15 lakhs has not been accounted by CBI, in the Statement C. 2 In respect of 4 NSCs purchased by R.Veeraswamy and Ms.V.kalavathi, during 1998, the maturity payment details are required - In case such maturity payments had taken place during the check period (01.01.2005 to 29.02.2008), the same too can be added to the Statement C. Unfortunately, it is not possible to identify the payment details as then all NSC maturity payments were made across the counter, in cash only.
It is also informed that my sister Ms.V.Kalavathi expired in Feb, 2005.
In fact, in respect of one of the 4 NSCs purchased by R.Veeraswamy and Ms.V.Kalavathi, during 1998, the maturity proceeds of NSC 16EE 753047 DT 21.02.1998 for Rs.10,000 in the name of R.Veeraswamy from Head Post Office, Tallakulam, Madurai was remained unpaid till 2019 and after protracted correspondence and several RTI Applications, R.Veeraswamy has got Rs.31,991 (maturity amount and interest thereon) on 02.11.2019 (Account No.0460621568) (It is also informed that India Post, other financial institutions like LIC, Banks etc do not take efforts to contact the policy holders/deposit holders and ensure the payment of maturity proceeds to the policyholder/deposit holder/nominee. Though it can be considered as deficiency is service, accepted as a matter of routine, now a days, despite computers etc).
In the case of, NSC No. 08EE 436075 dated 10.08.1998 for Rs.10,000 purchased by Ms.V.Kalavthi, if, was paid during the check period (i.e., between 01.01.2005 and 29.02.2008) the maturity value can be added to Statement C, in defense of R.Veeraswamy. In case, if the NSC remains unpaid, on maturity, till date, the entitled nominee can claim following due process/requirements. It is also informed that the said NSC is not traceable.
In view of the above, CIC may like to direct CPIO to provide the maturity payment details (if paid) so that the information can be used by R.Veeraswamy, for his defense. In case, if the said NSC still remains unpaid, the information may enable the nominee to claim the amount due, with compliance of due process....."
The CPIO submitted that for the averred NSC, the Appellant was neither the owner nor a nominee in the NSC and also the fact remains that the NSC NO. 08EE 436074 DATED 10.08.1998 was transferred to the Mumbai circle office on the request of the owner therefore , the complete records of it rests with Mumbai office now. He further apprised the Commission that however, as per the original application form of the said NSC, the actual nominee was the daughter of Ms. V. Kalavathi and not the Appellant's husband as claimed by her, thus information was denied under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act.
Decision:
3The Commission upon a perusal of records and after going through submissions of the CPIO is of the considered view that the CPIO has appropriately denied the records of NSC NO. 08EE 436074 DATED 10.08.1998 to the Appellant under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. In this regard, attention of the Appellant is drawn towards a judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein while explaining the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794.The following was thus held:
'59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive...' (Emphasis Supplied) In view of the above, no further relief can be granted in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) 4 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 5