CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2009/00422 dated Right to Information Act 2005 Section 19

Transcription

1 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2009/00422 dated Right to Information Act 2005 Section 19 Appellant: Respondent: Shri Suraj Prakash, United India Insurance Co. Decision Announced FACTS By an application of Shri Suraj Prakash of Madhu Trading Co. Dayal Bagh, Delhi applied to the CPIO, United India Insurance Co. seeking the following information: 1. Whether the insurance policy by your insurance company is issued on the basis of proposal form wherein the various details of the insured are filled up and necessary verification by the insurance company directly or through its agent? 2. Whether the aforesaid policy No /11/3/00806 in the name of M/s Madhu Trading Co., D-8, 33 Futta Road, Dayalpur, Delhi was issued on the basis of proposal form filled up by the insured and the company bei8ng satisfied with the information contained in the proposal form? If yes, a copy of the proposal form be supplied to me. 3. Whether as per the practice and policy of the insurance company, on receipt of the claim from the insured, the necessary claim is got verified through the approved surveyor and the same is processed in the Branch/ Division in its file and decision taken thereon by the competent authority? If yes, whether the claim No /11/006/04 dated was lodged by the aforesaid M/s Madhu Trding Co. with your company and what steps were taken by your company thereon for settlement of claim from the date of receipt of the claim. 4. Notings on the concerned file of your company from the receipt of the claim No /11/006/04 dated till final decision by the competent authority thereon be provided. 5. What is the normal period prescribed for settlement of claim received from the insured by your company? 6. Please furnish the names of the various authorities, who were responsible to initiate the claim and pass the claim in question. 7. Please also furnish the details of time taken by the various authorities at each level in disposal of the said claim. 1

2 8. Is it correct that complaints were lodged by the aforesaid insured with the Divisional Office on , and with Regional Office on and , including a notice of demand dated served on the Divisional Office? If so, how the respective complaints, were processed at various level in your company and relevant notings and decisions of the concerned authorities on such complaints/ notice be furnished. To this Shri Suraj Prakash received a response dated as an endorsement to a letter addressed to Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey, Advocate in whose custody the papers are indicated to have been, requesting Shri Pandey as follows: You are requested kindly take action in the above insured letter which is under Right to Information Act immediately and the copy of your action letter may be given to and as well as the same must be submitted to the Hon ble Court. Shri Suraj Prakash then sent a reminder to CPIO on submitting as follows: It is further stated that about 2 months have been elapsed since my request made to the authorities concerned but no any information is received in this regard. On not receiving any further reply Shri Suraj Prakash moved an appeal before Appellate Authority Shri A.A. Asthana, GM, United India Insurance Co. Chennai pleading as follows: That the Central Public Information Officer has failed and neglected to furnish the requisite information as would be evident from the fact that neither the requisite information has been furnished nor has any communication received from him. Besides, Shri Suraj Prakash also complained of mistreatment when attending the Divisional Office of United India Insurance Co in Kailash Building, K.G. Marg in the following words: Nobody accepted the application and required the appellant to go from one person to another nor the Divisional Office accepted the requisite fee. However, finally the application dated without fee was received by the Receipt Counter on 3 rd September,

3 In his order of Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. has provided a detailed reply to each of the questions asked to appellant Shri Suraj Prakash as follows: 1. As per available documents of this case, it is clear that this policy was issued as per the rules and regulations i.e. the contents of the policy are based upon our fire cover note no dated signed by Subhas Gupta, Development Officer (photocopy attached). On scrutiny, it is also pertinent to say that on Fire Cover note no to were issued by the same Development Officers in the name of Central Bank of India, Ghonda, New Delhi. Under this case of Fire & Burglary cover notes relating to Central bank of India were issued by our Development Officer Shri Subhash Gupta the signatory of the above cover notes as regard to Bank s various loans according to the information submitted by Bank through their Bank Registers therefore, Sir, you are requested to contact bank also as regard the information of this insurance particulars and or contents because of this insurance was done through bank i.e. M/s Central Bank of India Ghonda, New Delhi. On scrutiny of the litigation file, we have come across your letter dated addressed to us in which you have also confirmed us the occupation of premises covered under above policy used for Shop/ Trading and the same occupation in our Fire Policy No /33/806 issued for the period to in the name of Central CBI A/c M/s Madhu Trading Company delivering shop dealing in goods. The same contents are narrated on the Fire Cover note No dated which was issued to bank and accordingly our policy was issued but before the occurring of this loss neither you and no bank objected about the differences of contains of insurance. The same information has been already conveyed by our advocate in the above Hon ble Consumer Court. 2. As regard Para No. 3, as per available file M/s Madhu Trading & Co. lodged the claim vide their intimation dated and on the same date M/s Bhalla & Associates was deputed by the then Divisional Manager DR. H. L. Jaiswal. 3

4 3. As regard Para No. 4, Survey Report of M/s AKB & Associates delivered to the Company on and put that in course of processing and scrutiny the same case referred OM/s D. K. Taneja for Technical Opinions by the then Divisional Manager and it is put in the knowledge of Manager Grievance Dep t. DRO-I, New Delhi vide DO letter dated as (the file with Shri D. K. Taneja) for technical opinion. M/s D. K. Taneja & Associates issued their technical opinion report No. 28/N/ dated and submitted in DO on Accordingly Divisional Office vide their Regd. Letter dated has informed to M/s Madhu Trading Company as regard repudiation of the claim. Once again through Regd. Post vide letter No. DO- 9/SK/MB/MISC/365/05 dated M/s Madhu Trading Co. was informed as regards repudiation of claim. 4. As regard Para No. (5) as soon as the claim related documents fulfilled by the insured/ surveyor/ Bank after scrutiny claim settled. 5. As regard Para No. (6) as per the claim amount the claim setting agency is the Divisional Office-9, New Delhi, under this case claim was repudiated by the DO As per scrutiny the Survey Report issued by M/s D. K. Taneja & Company to our own company dated and accordingly after scrutiny DO-9, prepared their claim Note on and the same date decision as regard repudiation convey to insured through Regd. AD letter As regard Para No. (8) the timely intimation forwarded to M/s Madhu Trading Company such as our repudiation letter by , & etc and also to our Regional Office Grievance Dep t. DO-9, New Delhi as informed the status of the claim vide their letter dated as our RO Grievance letter No. GC/TCB/RK/184/05 dated You are requested to deposit the prescribed fee under the Right to Information Act, 2005 in our Office. However, the prayer of appellant Shri Suraj Prakash in his second appeal before us is as below: Prayer for information vide letter dated

5 This appeal, however, does not elucidate in what way appellant Shri Suraj Prakash has found the information provided inadequate. The appeal was heard on The following are present. Respondents Shri Man Singh Rawat, Regional Manager. Shri Amar Singh, Senior Divisional Manager. Although informed of the date of hearing through our letter of appellant Shri Suraj Prakash opted not to be present. Shri Man Singh Rawat, Regional Manager, submitted that on an earlier application fees had not been remitted. Nevertheless the information sought in this application has been provided to appellant on In response to our question Shri Man Singh Rawat submitted that the original application was forwarded to Shri S.K. Pandey, Advocate who was, in fact, representing the United India Insurance Co. before the Consumer Court and, therefore, the information was sought from him. DECISION NOTICE Whereas it is open to a CPIO to seek information from a nominee of the public authority in case the information is held by that nominee, the responsibility of providing information continues to vest with the public authority and therefore the CPIO who is the official authorised by the public authority to provide information sought, unless the CPIO seeks the assistance of any other officer u/s 5 (4). An advocate even if representing the public authority cannot be deemed an officer of the public authority. In this case we find that, in fact, the information sought by appellant has only been provided at the level of the Appellate Authority on Hence the CPIO has rendered himself liable to penalty from the date of receipt of the RTI Application to the date when the response was given, in this case, instead of when the information became due, thus rendering him liable for Rs. 250/- per day subject to a maximum of Rs. 25,000/-. The then CPIO, Shri JP Dhanda, Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 54, Janpath, New Delhi will, therefore, now show cause as to why 5

6 he should not be held liable for penalty. He may do so in writing by 27 th November, 2009 failing which it will be assumed that CPIO has no explanation to offer and this Commission will proceed accordingly. On the issue of information to be provided we find that in the letter of , Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. has provided a pointwise answer to the questions asked. However, as quoted above this response is accompanied with a request to deposit a prescribed fee under the RTI Act. Under sub Section (6) of Section 7 Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (5), the person making request for the information shall be provided the information free of charge where a public authority fails to comply with the time limits specified in sub-section (1). Hence, in this case there is no fee chargeable since the information was not provided within the time limit mandated under sub Section (1) of Section 7. Nevertheless, in his second appeal before us Shri Suraj Prakash has not identified any shortcoming in the information provided, hence there remains no further ground for our intervention. The appeal is therefore dismissed. There will be no costs. Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. (Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission. (Tarun Kumar) Addl. Registrar