Central Information Commission
Urmila Devi vs The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. on 15 July, 2022
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग ,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली New Delhi - 110067
नई द ली,
ि तीयअपीलसं या/Second
Second Appeal No.
No.CIC/OICOL/A/2020/138829
Mrs. Urmila Devi ... अपीलकता /Appellant
/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO ... ितवादी/Respondent
/Respondent
Oriental Insurance Company Limited
RO: Lucknow, JeewanBhavan,
3rd Floor, 43 Hazratganj,
Lucknow, UP- 226001
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
appeal:-
RTI : 02-09-2020 FA : 01-10-2020 SA : 09-12-2020
09
CPIO : 24-09-2020 FAO : 23-10-2020 Hearing: 14
4-07-2022
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Lucknow Lucknow. The appellant seeking information on four points including inter-alia alia is as under:-
etc. Page 1 of 5
2. The CPIO vide letter dated 24-09-2020has provided point-wise information to the appellant.Being dissatisfied with the same, the appellant has filed first appeal dated 01-10-2020 and requested that the information should be provided to her. The FAA vide order dated 23-10-2020upheld CPIOs reply and disposed the appeal. She has filed a second appeal before the Commission on the ground that information sought has not been provided to herand requested to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information.
Hearing:
3. The appellant did not attend the hearing despite notice. The respondent, Shri Vatsal Nath, CPIO/Regional Manager attended the hearing through video- conferencing.
4. Both the parties submitted their written submissions and the same has been taken on record.
5. The respondent submitted that vide their letter dated 24.09.2020, they have already provided a point-wise reply to the appellant as per their existing recordswell within reasonable time-frame as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondent and after perusal of records, observes that the appellant has sought information regarding her insurance claim form and other issues related thereto. The queries of the appellant is more in the nature of seeking clarifications regarding the status of her insurance claim. The appellant is also raising hypothetical questions as to "whether the order dated 10.01.2020 passed by the district committee is binding on the insurance company or not etc." It is well accepted that seeking information in the form of questions/ clarifications is not maintainable under the provisions of the RTI Act except such clarifications/ opinions which are believed to be existing in material form. That the CPIO is not supposed to give clarifications; to furnish answers to the questions under the ambit of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and only such reasons/opinions/advices can be provided to the applicants which are available on records of the public authority in material form. Nonetheless, the respondent has provided a categorical reply to all the queries by going beyond the scope of the RTI Act Page 2 of 5 vide their letter dated 24.09.2020. The CPIO cannot create information in the manner as sought by the appellant. The CPIO is only a communicator of information based on the records held in the office and hence, he cannot expect to do research work to deduce anything from the material therein and then supply it to him.
7. In this regard, the Commission referred to the definition of information u/s Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors), wherein it was held as under:
35 "A Public Authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making assumptions. It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant.
The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in KhanapuramGandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had held as under:
6. "....Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any Page 3 of 5 private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed."
7. "....the Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him."
Similarly, the High Court of Bombay in Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary (School Education) vs The Goa State Information Commission on 3 April, 2008 (2008 (110) Bom L R 1238) had held as under:
"Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for Page 4 of 5 a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."
8. In light of the above observations, the Commission is of the considered view that all the possible information as per their existing records has already been furnished by the respondent. Therefore the reply provided by the respondent is satisfactory and same is being upheld by the Commission. Therefore, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
9. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
10. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरजकु मारगु ा)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरजकु ा
सूचनाआयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक / Date : 14-07-2022
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा ),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO
Oriental Insurance Company Limited
RO: Lucknow, JeewanBhavan,
3rd Floor, 43 Hazratganj,
Lucknow, UP- 226001
2. Mrs. Urmila Devi
Page 5 of 5