Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: destroyed document in Mrshagun Malhotra vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. on 31 August, 2015Matching Fragments
3.3. Thereafter the appellant filed the present appeal/complaint before the Commission.
3.4. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant alleged that the documents as sought for were destroyed by the respondents. He also sought penalty proceedings against the CPIO for the delay caused in complying with directions of the FAA. The respondents stated that in compliance with directions of the FAA, the CPIO vide letter dated 04.02.2015 informed the appellant that the case was under
10.4 The Commission accepts the submissions of the respondents and holds that respondents had appropriately replied to the complainant. The complaint is closed.
Case No. CIC/MP/C/2015/000023:
11. The complainant Shri Shagun Malhotra submitted RTI application dated 08.08.2014 to the Central Public Information Officer, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (NIACL), Delhi stated that while underwriting the Fire Policy No. 321604/11/00000118, the underwriter referred to a copy/original of previous year's policy no. 321604/11/08/00000042 and wrote comments/requirements on the same along with writing agreed/accepted/OK on it, in a manner to signify the completion of underwriting. It had come to the knowledge that NIACL Sahibabad Branch had destroyed this document and sought certified copy of the policy no. 321604/11/08/00000042 or any such renewal notice, used by the underwriter for underwriting policy No. 321604/11/00000118, on which the concerned underwriter may have written remarks and also written agreed/accepted/OK to signify competition of underwriting.
11.2. Thereafter the complainant filed the present complaint before the Commission.
11.3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The complainant stated that he had a suspicion that the respondents had malafidely destroyed the documents as sought for. The CPIO's reluctance to disclose the particular information supports the suspicion. The respondents stated that the policy in question was available with the Central Bank of India and the bank had sent copy of the policy to the insured.