Central Information CommissionGovind Singh Rana S/O Devpal Singh Rana vs National Insurance Company Limited on 19 February, 2020के ीय सूचना आयोग\n                              Central Information Commission\n                                    बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका\n                               Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka\n                                 नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067\n\nिशकायत सं या / Complaint No.:- CIC/NINCL/C/2018/121880-BJ\n\nMr. Govind Singh Rana\n                                                                   .... िशकायतकता /Complainant\n                                            VERSUS\n                                             बनाम\n\nCPIO\nDy. Manager / PIO\nNational Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office - I\n16/96, the Mall, Kanpur - 208001\n\n                                                                      ... ितवादीगण /Respondent\nDate of Hearing       :                      18.02.2020\nDate of Decision      :                      19.02.2020\n\nDate of filing of RTI application                                        28.09.2017\nCPIO's response                                                          Not on Record\nDate of filing the First appeal                                          22.01.2018\nFirst Appellate Authority's response                                     31.01.2018\nDate of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission                  06.04.2018\n\n                                           ORDERFACTS:The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 04 points in respect of\nPolicy/Tag Number (as mentioned in the RTI application), the details of the Investigating officer\nwho investigated the death of livestock (buffalo) of the policy-holder; and other details related\nthereto.Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the Complainant approached the FAA (not on\nCommission's record). The FAA, vide its order dated 31.01.2018, directed the CPIO to furnish\ncomplete information on points 01 to 04 as mentioned in First Appeal dated 22.01.2018 and\ndisposed off the Appeal.HEARING:Facts emerging during the hearing:The following were present:Complainant: Absent;Respondent: Mr. Dinesh Kumar, CPIO and Sr. Div. Manager and Mr. Rajendra Kumar, CPIO\nand Sr. Branch Manager through VC;Page 1 of 6The Complainant remained absent during the hearing. The Commission was in receipt of a\nwritten submission from the Complainant dated 04.02.2020 wherein while reiterating the\nbackground of the case, he submitted that despite FAA's order, complete and satisfactory\ninformation was not provided by the CPIO even after depositing a sum of Rs. 110/- as\nphotocopying charges. He further submitted that false and misleading information was provided\nby the CPIO. Moreover, due to wrong and misleading information which was provided beyond\nthe stipulated time-period, he could not make his case before the Consumer Forum, which\nultimately caused immense loss. Therefore, it was prayed to the Commission to initiate penal\naction against the erring CPIO for not furnishing the requisite information and to provide him\ncompensation for mental harassment/loss caused to him. He further prayed to the Commission to\nconsider the above submissions in his absence and dispose of the instant Complaint based on the\nfacts/documents put forth. In its reply, the Respondent informed the Commission that the CPIO\nvide its letter dated 01.11.2017 had furnished information to the Complainant. The FAA had\nalso sent a reply on 31.01.2018. Thereafter, on receipt of notice of hearing from the\nCommission, a detailed reply along with the report of the Investigating Officer,\nMr. Jitendra Kumar Dwivedi, Investigating Officer / Panel Advocate dated 04.02.2020 had also\nbeen dispatched to the Complainant. The Live Stock Insurance Claim filed by the Complainant\nhad been rejected on technical grounds and therefore he had been filing complaint in this regard.The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 04.02.2020\nwherein it was submitted that the CPIO had provided information vide its letter dated\n27.04.2018. A copy complete correspondence along with the policy claim file was enclosed for\nthe Commission's reference and the same was also endorsed to the Complainant. The\nRespondent further admitted that due to inadvertent typographical mistakes, the appointed\ninvestigating officer had wrongly entered the details in Health Certificate.The Commission referred to the definition of informationu/s 2(f)of the RTI Act, 2005 which is\nreproduced below:"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-\n       mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report,\n       papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information\n       relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other\n       law for the time being in force."Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract ofSection 2 (j)of the RTI Act,\n2005 which reads as under:"(j) right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which\n       is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes ........"In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC\n497 (CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay), wherein it was held as under:35..... "It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor\n       required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to\n       'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' insection 2(f)of the Act, only\n       refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public\n       authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion toPage 2 of 6the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation\n       under theRTI Act."Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative\nOfficer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010)\nhad held as under:6. "....Under the RTI Act"information" is defined underSection 2(f)which provides:"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-\n       mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report,\n       papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information\n       relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other\n       law for the time being in force."This definition shows that an applicant underSection 6of the RTI Act can get any\n       information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under\n       law. Of course, under theRTI Actan applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions,\n       advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such\n       opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed."7. "....the Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not\n       before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. UnderSection 6of\n       the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed\n       by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers\n       sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority\n       nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged\n       to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was\n       before him."The Commission observed that the framework of theRTI Act, 2005restricts the jurisdiction of\nthe Commission to provide a ruling on the issues pertaining to access/ right to information and to\nventure into the merits of a case or redressal of grievance. The Commission in a plethora of\ndecisions including Shri Vikram Singh v. Delhi Police, North East District,\nCIC/SS/A/2011/001615 dated 17.02.2012Sh. Triveni Prasad Bahuguna vs. LIC of India,\nLucknow CIC/DS/A/2012/000906dated 06.09.2012, Mr. H. K. Bansal vs. CPIO & GM (OP),\nMTNL CIC/LS/A/2011/000982/BS/1786 dated 29.01.2013 had held thatRTI Actwas not the\nproper law for redressal of grievances/disputes.The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter ofUnion of India v. Namit Sharmain\nREVIEW PETITION [C] No.2309 OF 2012 IN Writ Petition [C] No.210 OF 2012 with State of\nRajasthan and Anr. vs. Namit Sharma Review Petition [C] No.2675 OF 2012 In Writ Petition [C]\nNo.210 OF 2012 had held as under:"While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information\n       "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information\n       Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their\n       legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority.\n       This function obviously is not a judicial function, but an administrative function\n       conferred by the Act on the Information Commissions."Page 3 of 6Furthermore, the High Court of Delhi in the matter ofHansi Rawat and Anr. vs. Punjab National\nBank and Ors. LPA No.785/2012dated 11.01.2013 held as under:"6. The proceedings under theRTI Actdo not entail detailed adjudication of the said\n       aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 LPA No.785/2012 from\n       the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the\n       appropriate forum. The purport of theRTI Actis to enable the appellants to effectively\n       pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the\n       response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to\n       be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under theRTI Actcannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness\n       of the information furnished."Moreover, in a recent decision in Govt. of NCT vs. Rajendra Prasad WP (C) 10676/2016 dated\n30.11.2017, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had held as under:6. The CIC has been constituted underSection 12of the Act and the powers of CIC are\n       delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the\n       confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any\n       other controversy or disputes.7. In the present case, it is apparent that CIC had decided issues which were plainly\n       outside the scope of the jurisdiction of CIC under the Act. The limited scope of\n       examination by the CIC was: (i) whether the information sought for by the respondent\n       was provided to him; (ii) if the same was denied, whether such denial was justified; (iii)\n       whether any punitive action was required to be taken against the concerned PIO; and (iv)\n       whether any directions underSection 19(8)were warranted. In addition, the CIC also\n       exercises powers underSection 18of the Act and also performs certain other functions as\n       expressly provided under various provisions of the Act includingSection 25of the Act. It\n       is plainly not within the jurisdiction of the CIC to examine the dispute as to whether\n       respondent no.2 was entitled to and was allotted a plot of land under the 20-Point\n       Programme.A similar view delineating the scope of the Commission's jurisdiction was also taken by the\nHon'ble High Court of Delhi in Sher Singh Rawat vs. Chief Information Commissioner and Ors.,\nW.P. (C) 5220/2017 and CM No. 22184/2017 dated 29.08.2017 and in the matter ofShobha\nVijender vs. Chief Information Commissioner W.P. (C) No.8289/2016 and CM 34297/2016\ndated 29.11.2017.With regard to imposition of penalty on the CPIO/PIO underSection 20of the RTI Act, 2005,\nthe Commission took note of the ruling of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) 11271/2009Registrar of Companies & Ors v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr.(delivered on: 01.06.2012)\nwherein it was held:" 61. Even if it were to be assumed for the sake of argument, that the view taken by the\n         learned Central Information Commissioner in the impugned order was correct, and\n         that the PIOs were obliged to provide the information, which was otherwise retrievable\n         by the querist by resort toSection 610of the Companies Act, it could not be said that\n         the information had been withheld malafide or deliberately without any reasonablePage 4 of 6cause. It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief\n        and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one\n        or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by\n        the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a showcause notice\n        underSection 20of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has\n        cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where\n        the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the\n        information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or\n        destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed. This\n        was certainly not one such case. If the CIC starts imposing penalty on the PIOs in every\n        other case, without any justification, it would instill a sense of constant apprehension in\n        those functioning as PIOs in the public authorities, and would put undue pressure on\n        them. They would not be able to ful fill their statutory duties under theRTI Actwith an\n        independent mind and with objectivity. Such consequences would not auger well for the\n        future development and growth of the regime that theRTI Actseeks to bring in, and\n        may lead to skewed and imbalanced decisions by the PIOs Appellate Authorities and\n        the CIC. It may even lead to unreasonable and absurd orders and bring the institutions\n        created by theRTI Actin disrepute."Similarly, the following observation of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court inBhagat Singh v. CIC &\nOrs. WP(C) 3114/2007 are pertinent in this matter:"17. This Court takes a serious note of the two year delay in releasing information, the\n       lack of adequate reasoning in the orders of the Public Information Officer and the\n       Appellate Authority and the lack of application of mind in relation to the nature of\n       information sought. The materials on record clearly show the lackadaisical approach of\n       the second and third respondent in releasing the information sought. However, the\n       Petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that they malafidely denied the information\n       sought. Therefore, a direction to the Central Information Commission to initiate action\n       underSection 20of the Act, cannot be issued."Furthermore, the High Court of Delhi in the decision of Col.Rajendra Singh v. Central\nInformation Commission and Anr. WP (C) 5469 of 2008 dated 20.03.2009 had held as under:"Section 20, no doubt empowers the CIC to take penal action and direct\n       payment of such compensation or penalty as is warranted. Yet the Commission has to be\n       satisfied that the delay occurred was without reasonable cause or the request was denied\n       malafidely.......The preceding discussion shows that at least in the opinion of this Court, there are\n       no allegations to establish that the information was withheld malafide or unduly delayed\n       so as to lead to an inference that petitioner was responsible for unreasonably\n       withholding it."The Complainant could not substantiate his claims regarding malafide denial of information by\nthe Respondent or for withholding it without any reasonable cause.Page 5 of 6DECISION:Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent, no further\nintervention of the Commission is required in the matter. For redressal of his grievance, the\nComplainant is advised to approach an appropriate forum.The Complaint stands disposed accordingly.(Bimal Julka) (िबमल जु का)\n                                                 (Information Commissioner) (सूचना आयु )\nAuthenticated true copy\n(अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित)\n\n\n\n\n(K.L. Das) (के .एल.दास)\n(Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक)\n011-26182598/[email protected]दनांक / Date: 19.02.2020Page 6 of 6