CIC instructed the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd to convene periodic conferences /seminars to sensitize, familiarize and educate the concerned officials about the relevant provisions of the RTI Act for effective discharge of its duties & responsibilities
28 May, 2017O R D E R
FACTS:
The appellant, vide his RTI application sought information on 2 points regarding payment of claims in compliance with the judgment of Consumer Court and action taken thereon, whether the decision of the consumer court had been contested in eh higher court and related issues. Dissatisfied on not receiving any response from the CPIO, the appellant approached the FAA. The reply of the CPIO or the order of the FAA, if any is not available in the record of the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing on 15.02.2017:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mrs. Jayati Sarkar (Manager- SBI) appellant’s representative (M: 7859052169) through VC; Respondent: Mr. Alok Kumar Singh, Sr. DMO (Oriental Insurance), Ranchi (M: 9471000146) through VC;
The representative of appellant reiterated the contents of RTI application and stated that no satisfactory response was received by the appellant till date. In reply, the respondent submitted that the matter of appellant’s pending claim was adjudicated by the District Consumer Forum, Purnea and a decision was pronounced in favour of the appellant. Subsequently, on 16.05.2016, a payment of Rs. 4,62,421/- was made in the District Court, Purnea. It was further submitted that intimation was also sent to the appellant on 07.05.2016, that returned undelivered since the address was incorrect. The representative of the appellant contested and alleged that the respondent was misleading the Commission since in the notice of hearing the Commission specified the same address as provided in the RTI application which was duly received by the appellant. It was further submitted that as per the order of the Consumer Court dated 28.08.2015, the respondents were required to make payment of claims within 2 months from the date of the order. However, the aforesaid order was complied only on 16.05.2016, where also only partial payment was made to the appellant. It was further submitted that there was enormous delay in compliance of the said order of the Consumer Court and that no information regarding his RTI application was also provided, till date. The appellant’s representative demanded compensation in accordance with Section-19(8)(b) and imposition of penalty on the respondent as per Section 20(1) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. of the RTI Act, 2005 for the loss and detriment suffered in all these years. The Commission observed that under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, only such information as is available and existing and held by the public authority or is under control of the public authority can be provided. The PIO is not supposed to create information that is not a part of the record. He is also not required to interpret information or furnish replies to hypothetical questions. Similarly, redressal of grievance, reasons for non compliance of rules/contesting the actions of the respondent public authority are outside the purview of the Act. On a query from the Commission regarding reasons for not providing the information as per the period stipulated under section 7 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005, no satisfactory response was provided by the respondent. The Commission noted that there is complete negligence and laxity in the public authority in dealing with the RTI applications. It is abundantly clear that such matters are being ignored and set aside without application of mind which reflects disrespect towards the RTI Act, 2005 itself. The Commission expressed its displeasure on the casual and callous approach adopted by the respondent in responding to the RTI application. It was felt that the conduct of respondent was against the spirit of the RTI Act, 2005 Page 3 of 4 which was enacted to ensure greater transparency and effective access to the information.
DECISION
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, it is evident that no reply had been provided by the respondent in the matter, which is a grave violation of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The Commission, instructs Mr. Neeraj Kumar, CPIO, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Patna to showcause why action should not be taken under the provisions of the Act for this misconduct and negligence. The Commission therefore, directs the respondent to:
1- provide the information to the appellant within a period of 10 days;
2- explain why penal action should not be taken as per Section 20(1) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. of the RTI Act, 2005, within 15 days; from the date of receipt of this order.
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the respondent, the Commission instructs the CMD, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd to re-examine the matter and convene periodic conferences/seminars to sensitize, familiarize and educate the concerned officials about the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 for effective discharge of its duties and responsibilities.
The appeal stands disposed accordingly.
Note: Subsequent to receipt of response from the CPIO dated 02.03.2017 against the show cause notice contained it the order of the Commission dated 15.02.2017, the Commission vide its letter dated 04.05.2017, fixed 23.05.2017 as the next date of hearing in the matter.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing on 23.05.2017:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. Neeraj Kumar, Assistant Manager/CPIO (M:9471860428) through VC;
The Appellant remained absent during the hearing. The Respondent explained that a suitable response had been provided to the Appellant in a time bound manner. The Respondent further submitted that the RTI application of the Appellant was received on 08.02.2016 and a suitable reply was provided by the CPIO vide its letter dated 07.03.2016. The First Appeal was received in his office on 16.03.2016, which was heard and disposed of by the FAA on 31.03.2016. It was further contended that on receipt of the notice of hearing before the Commission on 08.09.2016, a reply was accordingly sent to the Commission vide email on the mail ID registryicmp@gov.in. The Respondent further submitted that the claim of the Appellant was also resolved after an intimation from the Divisional Office, Purnea and the same was intimated to the Appellant vide its letter dated 02.03.2017.
The Commission is in receipt of the letter from the Chairman/Managing Director (Officiating) dated 03.03.2017 assuring the Commission that an advisory had been issued to the concerned CPIO/FAA to ascertain complete facts of the instant case and comply with the directions of the Commission in a time bound manner.
ADJUNCT DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in this matter. The penalty proceedings against the Respondent stand dropped.
In a service oriented company like The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the Commission noted with concern the manner in which the delivery of services was being implemented and would advise the management to initiate immediate necessary steps to reorient its thinking, strategy and delivery in the larger public interest. Therefore, the Commission instructs the Respondent to convene periodic conferences/seminars to sensitize, familiarize and educate the concerned officials about the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 for effective discharge of its duties and responsibilities.
(Bimal Julka)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Mr. Mihir Kumar v. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. in Appeal No.:-CIC/MP/A/2016/001239-BJ-Adjunct Appeal No.:-CIC/MP/A/2016/001239-BJ-Adjunct; Date of Decision : 15.02.2017, 23.05.2017