Central Information Commission
.Ravi Kumar Poddar vs Insurance Division on 22 June, 2010
1
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/AT/A/2008/00025-DS
Appellant : Shri R.K. Potdar,Indore(through video conferencing)
Public Authority: The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (through Shri V.K. Sharma,
Manager, RO: Indore; & Shri V.V. Mohlla, Manager, New Delhi)
Date of Hearing: 22/06/2010
Date of Decision: 22/06/2010
Facts:-
The appellant Shri R.K. Potdar, vide his RTI application of 19/10/2007, sought information from CPIO, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, New Delhi in respect of three cases, namely:-
JPA Claim No.47/99/001 a/c Shri Sheel Chand Jain Claim No.47/98/004 a/c Shri Rajendra Kumar Jain Claim No.11/2000/10 a/c M/s Srinathji and company including copy of inquiry report submitted by the three-member investigation team, names of officers who were charge-sheeted for major penalty proceedings along with copies of charge- sheets. copies of all correspondence on the subject between the company's vigilance officer and CVC, copy of advice of the CVC, Delhi, and whether FIR has been filed in this case. Enclosed herewith as Annexure-A.
2. The matter was heard by the Commission on 22/12/2008 and disposed of vide order No.F.No.CIC/AT/A/2008/00025. Vide this order the Commission remitted the matter back to the FAA with directions to hear both sides and to pass specific orders on each point raised by the appellant:- "whether the information was available and if so where, and whether it can be disclosed under the provisions of the RTI Act". The Appellate Authority was directed to decide the matter de novo and pass a speaking order within 04 weeks and clearly give his findings in regard to each item of the inquiry made by the appellant.
3. Accordingly, the FAA issued notices to the appellant and the CPIO, Regional Office, Indore to make themselves available on 19/03/2009.
4. The appellant expressed his inability to visit personally and submitted his written arguments dated 12/03/2009.
5. A copy of the order passed by the FAA dated 24/03/2009 is enclosed herewith as Annexure-B.
6. Failing to be satisfied, the appellant has preferred appeal against the above order before the Commission.
27. The matter was heard on 22/06/2010. Appellant was heard through video conferencing. Respondents were present in person as above. Both sides animatedly argued their case.
DECISION
8. After hearing both parties and on perusing the facts on record, the Commission decides as follows:-
9. In respect of paras 1,2&4 of the RTI application, the Commission is in agreement with the decision of the FAA and information sought under these 3 paras is denied u/s 8(1)(h) of the Act.
10. Respondents are directed to provide affidavit to the Commission that the subject matter of paras 1,2&4 is currently under investigation or is the subject matter of court proceedings along with case number assigned by the concerned police station/court. A copy of the affidavit to be provide to the appellant.
11. Para 3:- In respect of information sought in para 3, the FAA has stated that the duplicate claim file a/c M/s Shreenathji & Company has been taken over by the Police Station, MG Road, Indore vide their seizure memo dated 29/07/2002. Also that the said claim is under the scrutiny of the State Consumer Commission of MP, Bhopal and any disclosure of information at this stage would expose the company's defence in the said case thereby harming the competitive position of the company and is, therefore, denied u/s 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act.
12. The respondent stated that while the original file in this case is with the State Consumer Commission, the duplicate file was taken over by the police authorities.
13. The Commission directs the respondents to provide an affidavit about whereabouts of the file and the duplicate file as per their averments at the hearing to the Commission and provide a copy of the same to the appellant.
14. It is noted that the respondents stated that the question of causing loss to the public exchequer as alleged by the appellant does not arise since no amount has been paid till date towards the claim.
15. Para 5,6&7:- The CPIO, RO: Indore, has already provided all documents in their custody to the appellant on 08/04/2009 free of cost. In response to the complaint made by the appellant that the documents provided to him were not attested, respondents submitted that some of the documents were fraudulent and respondents feared that attestation may give some legitimacy to these documents. The Commission agrees with this.
16. The Commission directs that these documents may be issued with the following statement "Not authenticated. Replicated from photocopy only".
17. Para 8:- The Commission has noted the statement of the FAA that in the FIR only the incident in general is reported to the police authorities who then carry out investigation in its entirety covering all aspects of the incident. It is not uncommon for a public authority to decide to initiate departmental proceedings for major penalty in respect of cases where financial misdemeanour has occurred. In such cases the public authority does not always register an FIR.
318. Accordingly, the Commission is satisfied with the position taken by the public authority as stated by FAA. However, respondents are directed to provide the name of the officer who has filed FIR in this case.
19. Above information to be provided within 03 weeks of receipt of this order.
(Smt. Deepak Sandhu) Information Commissioner (DS) Authenticated true copy:
(T.K. Mohapatra) Under Secretary & Deputy Registrar Copy to:-
1. Shri Ravi Kumar Potdar, 72/74, Suyash Vihar, Bhamori Dube, Nandanagar, Indore-452011.
2. Shri V.K. Sharma, Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, Regional Office: D A Bhawan, 4th floor, 7 Race Course Road, Indore- 452003.
3. Shri V.V. Mohlla, Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, Oriental House, P. B. No-7037, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-110002.