Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Sunil Kumar Singh vs Automotive Research Association Of ... on 9 April, 2019

                                के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
                      Central Information Commission
                             बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
                      Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                        नईददल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

 नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/ARAOI/A/2017/177219

Shri Sunil Kumar Singh                                       ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
                                    VERSUS
                                       बनाम
PIO, Dy. General Manager (RTI Cell),                  ...प्रनतवादीगण /Respondents
The Automotive Research Association of India,
M/o Heavy Industries and Public
Enterprises, Survey No. 102, Vetal Hill,
Off Pune Road, Kothrud, Pune-411038

Through:
Shri Sanjay Karkar
Shri Shirish Ravi, GM Legal

Date of Hearing                      :   03.04.2019
Date of Decision                     :   08.04.2019
Information Commissioner             :   Shri Y. K. Sinha

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on             :   29.07.2017
PIO replied on                       :   Nil (21.08.2017)*
First Appeal filed on                :   13.09.2017
First Appellate Order on             :   Nil
2ndAppeal/complaint received on      :   08.11.2017

Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 29.07.2017, seeking informationfrom Automotive Research Association of India (ARAI) on thirteen points regarding data/information relating to Maruti SuzukiErtiga car. Some of the queries are:

1. For Maruti Suzuki make Ertiga Car, a labelled diagram showing all dimensions of diesel fuel tank (starting from Fuel Tank Cap to Fuel Tank body).

2. In case of Maruti Suzuki make Ertiga Car, clearance between ground and lowest portion of fuel tank.

3. In case of Maruti Suzuki make Ertiga Car, clearance between ground and inlet of fuel tank with tyre in fully inflated condition.

4. Whether ARAI has any information in respect of diesel catching fire(diesel stored in a steel container with mouth cap/vent in place)?

5. Has ARAI any document/information about "Under what condition(s) diesel can catch fire"?

6. Whether ARAI has come across any instance of a stationery diesel car caching fire or in case ARAI has ever conducted any such study on stationery diesel car? Etc...

Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a first appeal dated 13.09.2017. Feeling aggrieved as neither the PIO nor the FAA furnished information,the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

The Appellant is absent despite service of notice of hearing. The Respondent is heard through video conferencing. Attention is drawn towards Rule 126 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989:

Rule 126 - Prototype of every motor vehicle to be subject to test On and from the date of commencement of Central Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Rules, 1993, every manufacturer or importer of motor vehicles shall submit the prototype of the vehicle to be manufactured or imported by him for test by the Vehicle Research and Development Establishment of the Ministry of Defence of the Government of India or Automotive Research Association of India, Pune, or the Central Farm Machinery Testing and Training Institute, Budni (MP), or the Indian Institute of Petroleum, Dehradun, or the Central Institute of Road Transport, Pune, or the International Centre for Automotive Technology, Manesar,or the Global Automotive Research Centre, Chennaior the Global Automotive Research Centre, Chennai and such other agencies as may be specified by the Central Government for granting a certificate by that agency as to the compliance of provisions of the Act and these rules.

The PIO submits that there are various institutions specified under the rule (ibid) to test prototypes of motor vehicles. The PIO submits that the respondent public authority did not conduct any test on the prototype of the vehicle in question and hence, no part of the information is available with Page 2 of 3 respondent.Upon a query by the Commission, the PIO feigns ignorance as to which institute conducted test specified under Rule 126 of CMVR, 1989 qua vehicle in question. The PIO states to have replied twice to the RTI application vide letters dated 21.08.2017 and again on 04.10.2017. Supporting written submissions with copies of replies dated 21.08.2017 and 04.10.2017 filed on record.

Decision:

After hearing the Respondent and perusal of record, the Commission finds that the PIO has answered the RTI application dated 29.07.2017 in accordance with law. The Respondent public authority is not the custodian of information sought. No intervention is required in the present matter.

The appeal is disposed off.

Y. K. Sinha (वाई. के . नसन्द्हा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त ) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणितसत्यापितप्रतत) Ram Parkash Grover (राम प्रकाश ग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 3 of 3