Central Information Commission
Shri Brij Bhushan Singla vs Lic Of India, New Delhi on 4 February, 2010
Central Information Commission
Room No.296, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi‐110066
Telefax:011‐26180532 & 011‐26107254 website‐cic.gov.in
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2009/000884‐DS
Appellant : Shri Brij Bhushan Singla, Chandigarh
Public Authority : LIC of India, New Delhi
(through Shri Neeraj Agarwal, Regional Manager(P&IR) & CPIO;
Ms.Chitra Shankar, Secretary(Marketing)&AA; & Shri Gagan Dua, AAO)
Date of Hearing : 04/02/2010
Date of Decision : 04/02/2010
Facts:-
The appellant Shri Brij Bhushan Singla vide his RTI application dated 16/03/2007 sought information from the respondents, namely, LIC of India, Zonal Office, New Delhi on the following questions:-
2. The CPIO responded vide his order dated 02/04/2007 vide which he denied information sought under A,B,C of the RTI application quoting sub section (d) of section 8(1) of the RTI Act, 2005.
3. Not satisfied with the order, the complainant went in first appeal to the first AA through his application dated 01/05/2007.
4. The first AA, after examining the RTI application, over-ruled the order of the CPIO vide his order dated 19/05/2007 and provided information on B & C of the RTI application. In respect of A, the order stated as follows:-
5. The appellant moved the Commission in second appeal vide his application dated 13/09/2009.
6. Heard today. The appellant and the respondents as above are present. During the hearing, the appellant stated, that, while he had been denied information in respect of A of his RTI application which stated that old records had been destroyed he submitted before the Commission as follows:-
7. The appellant also stated that the figure provided to him by the public authority in respect of budget of Malerkotla Branch for the year 1994 - in respect of policies, sum assured and FPI were at variance with the figures provided to the Court by the Corporation on 12/11/2008.
8. The representative of the public authority in their written submission presented at the hearing have stated that they have re‐checked the figures and confirmed that data provided to the appellant in respect of Branch Office, Nabha and Chandigarh, CAB were correct; only the figures of Malerkotla Branch were at variance due to an inadvertent action.
9. They submitted that they have now provided the correct information on this count to the appellant.
Decision
10. In view of the averment of the appellant in his appeal before the Commission, the delay in approaching the Commission is condoned under sub-section (3) of Section 19(1) of the RTI Act.
11. The respondent will ascertain from their Chandigarh Office, if, in fact, they have provided the aforesaid information to the Court in which case they would be having a copy of the same in their Legal Cell, which may, then, be provided to the appellant.
12. The Commission accepted the plea of the respondent that they had informed the appellant that the records with them were destroyed and they were not aware of the court case at Chandigarh wherein this information had been provided by Chandigarh Office to the court.
13. The above information may be provided to the appellant within two weeks of receipt of this order.
(Smt. Deepak Sandhu) Information Commissioner (DS) Authenticated true copy:
(Tarun Kumar) Joint Secretary & Addl. Registrar Copy to:‐
1. Shri Brij Bhushan Singla, H. No.110, Sector 46A, Chandigarh-160047.
2. Shri Neeraj Agarwal, Regional Manager(P&IR) & CPIO Under RTI Act, 2005, LIC of India, Jeevan Bharti Building, 12th Floor, Tower II, Connaught Circus, New Delhi‐110001.
3. Ms.Chitra Shankar, Secretary(Marketing) & The Appellate Authority, Under RTI Act, 2005, LIC of India, Jeevan Bharti Building, 12th Floor, Tower II, Connaught Circus, New Delhi-110001.
4. Shri Gagan Dua, AAO LIC of India, Jeevan Bharti Building, 12th Floor, Tower II, Connaught Circus, New Delhi-110001.