Central Information Commission
Shri Sanjiva Dayal vs Oriental Insurance Company Limited on 27 January, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/C/2008/00760
Dated, the 27th January, 2010.
Complainant : Shri Sanjiva Dayal
Respondents : Oriental Insurance Company Limited
This matter was heard partly through videoconferencing (VC) on 18.01.2010 in the presence of both parties. Complainant was present at NIC VC facility at Kanpur, while the respondents represented by Shri M.Sinha, Regional Manager & CPIO, Regional Office, Lucknow and Shri V.V. Mohlla, Manager were present at the Commission's New Delhi office, from where the Commission conducted the hearing.
2. Earlier, when this matter was heard, the Commission, on 01.05.2009, in its interim order directed the respondents, viz. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (OICL) to file their written-statement about the complaint of the complainant that five key-documents were not found in the records which he had inspected on 18.11.2006.
3. Through their communication dated 20.05.2009, the respondents, through their Deputy General Manager and CPIO, Shri P.K. Jha stated as follows:-
"On receipt of your directives, the matter was again taken up with the concerned Regional Office. After carrying out thorough research at their end, we have been apprised that after going through the relevant files pertaining to the documents, the missing documents are not traceable / available. We have been further apprised that Title Deed and Mortgage Deed, mentioned at Sl.No.3 & 5, of your communication are normally returned to the employee borrower once all the dues to the Public Authority in terms of loans advance have been fully recovered.
It is reiterated that we have shown all the available documents with us to Sh. Sanjiva Dayal, pursuant to Hon'ble CIC Order No.CIC/AT/C/2007/00344 dated 07.04.2008, during the inspection of files on 10.04.2008. He received photocopies of all the documents desired by him as available and thoroughly AT-27012010-06.doc Page 1 of 5 inspected the files relating to Housing Loan, Complaints and the Vigilance.
Thus, all the documents as available with us relating to the aforesaid Order have already been placed before the complainant for his satisfaction, inspection and taking photocopies wherever he so desired."
4. In his rejoinder dated 29.05.2009, complainant had made the following points:-
(i) The response of the CPIO shows that they admit that the five documents, viz. (i) Housing Loan Application dated 25.9.1989, (ii) Builder Agreement dated 14.10.1989, (iii) Title Deed on Flat No.A2(A) deposited by Shri Narendra Singh Bakshi on 17.11.1989 in the office of Chairman cum Managing Director, OICL, New Delhi to create equitable mortgage by deposit of Title Deed, (iv) Verification report of Title Deed by Panel Advocate and (v) Mortgage Deed) were either missing, not available or were untraceable.
These documents could be either missing, lost or stolen, which required that public authority file a criminal case in the above matter.
(ii) The statement of the respondents that Title Deed and Mortgage Deed were "normally returned" to the borrower once the dues were fully recovered, was vague, misleading and evasive. No documentary evidence was available to support this contention of the CPIO. The public authority ought to have retained a copy of these documents even if it is accepted for the sake of argument that these were returned to the borrower.
(iii) Complainant claims that he was informed by "reliable sources" that there was no system of returning the Mortgage Deed to the borrower.
(iv) Complainant again claims to have been informed by "reliable sources" that when registered documents such as Agreements and Title Deeds are deposited by a borrower for the purpose of the grant of loan, the details of these documents ⎯ the date of their execution, and registration, serial numbers of registration and details of Sub-Registrar AT-27012010-06.doc Page 2 of 5 Office, etc. are duly noted in the Insurance Company's "permanent records". These must be available with the company.
5. During the hearing, complainant made a further point that in the year 2004, a vigilance enquiry was conducted on the basis of the complaint filed by the complainant about the documentation in the loan sanctioned to one, Shri Narendra Singh Bakshi by the Insurance Company, viz. Oriental Insurance Company Limited. In that Enquiry Report, it was noted that complainant had filed valid property documents on Stamp papers. It was complainant's surmise that the property documents, which he had requested for disclosure now, were present in the year 2004. If it was so, these documents becoming untraceable at this point in time needed to be properly explained. Complainant suspects mala-fide in these key documents going missing.
6. It was argued on behalf of the respondents that the records that were shown to the complainant were as these were held by the respondents. At this distance in time, they were not in a position to state as to how and why certain documents in those records were not present. They were not in a position to state whether these documents were part of the records at any time in the past or the circumstances in which these documents, after being parts of the records, were subsequently removed. This matter is of 1989 vintage and nothing definitive can be said about why certain part of the documentation was unavailable. They repeated their point that this matter was not a live one and all the outstanding dues have been fully recovered. The vigilance enquiry referred to by the complainant also found nothing wrong in the documentation. CPIO stated that he could not say whether the documents mentioned by the complainant were available on the records when the vigilance enquiry occurred in 2004.
7. Reacting to the complainant's plea that the public authority should be directed to file a complaint with the police regarding missing documents, it was stated on behalf of the respondents that they felt no need for this. They stated that no criminal case was made out and it was their point that there was no criminal activity relating to these documents. They stated that the complainant should feel free to file a criminal complaint himself should in some way he feels aggrieved or that he feels that a criminal act had somehow been committed.
8. Complainant cited the decision of the Commission in Dr.Deepa Bhatia Vs. N.D.M.C. (Navyug Schools Educational Society); Appeal AT-27012010-06.doc Page 3 of 5 No.CIC/WB/A/2006/00536 & 00540; Date of Decision: 30.10.2006 and demanded that CIC direct the respondents to file a criminal complaint with the police regarding the missing documents.
9. Complainant further stated that CIC should not close this case till such time as his concerns were fully addressed. He believes that he was engaged in an effort to unearth collusion between the lending agencies and borrowers in the misuse of House Building loans.
Decision:
10. This complainant has been provided several pieces of documents either by the respondents on their own or on the direction of the CIC. Now he demands that respondents take criminal action for what he believes to be theft of documents, which according to him ought to have been available in the records of the public authority, but were found mysteriously missing when complainant inspected the records on 18.11.2006.
11. I'm afraid this demand of the complainant is unsustainable. This matter is undoubtedly of 1989 vintage. Respondents have categorically stated that they are not in a position to state as to how the five documents were not available on the records as of now nor were they in a position to state whether these documents were at any time parts of the appropriate records nor whether these were at any point of time in the past returned to the borrower. On the question of whether there was any mala-fide in these documents not being traceable in the records now, respondents stated that mala-fide could not be assumed merely on the basis of so-called missing documents. They point to the fact that a vigilance enquiry in 2004, as admitted by the complainant himself, found nothing remiss in the housing loan transaction. They alleged that complainant was making all manner of allegations as he was pursuing a vendetta against the borrower of the loan, one Shri Narendra Singh Bakshi. The complainant's anger and hostility against the third-party and, the tenacity with which he has pursued his agenda against him, is surprising and unusual. Allegations of mala-fides against all and sundry was only to invest his personal vendetta against third-party with a superior purpose, i.e. combating corruption.
12. I find myself in agreement with the respondents that the demand on them to file a criminal complaint in the matter of the so-called missing documents, was untenable.
AT-27012010-06.doc Page 4 of 5
13. I'm, therefore, not in a position to issue any such directive to the respondents.
14. Complaint closed.
15. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI ) INFORMATION COMMISSIONER AT-27012010-06.doc Page 5 of 5