IRDA: The copy of the full investigation report, action taken report & other details i.e., names & designations of officers involved in this case, may not be provided since it is the internal matter of IRDA & attracts section 8(1)(d) - CIC: denial upheld
20 Sep, 2014Facts:
1. The appellant, Shri Nilesh Prabhu, submitted RTI application dated 18 April 2013 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority, Hyderabad; seeking information on the status of his complaint dated 22.12.2012 against TNT India Pvt. Ltd. bearing complaint reference no. 562/IRDA/MISC/1112 etc., through a total of 8 points.
2. Vide reply 8 May 2013, CPIO, Consumer Affair Deptt., furnished information on point nos. a & d and denied information on point nos. b & c u/s 8(1)(d) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; of the RTI Act, 2005; and also informed that information on rest of the points would be furnished by the CPIO concerned. Not satisfied with the CPIO’s reply, the appellant preferred an appeal dated 17 May 2013 to the first appellate authority (FAA) alleging that he had been wrongly denied the information on point nos. b & c by the CPIO concerned. Vide order dated 18 June 2013, FAA upheld the CPIO’s decision and also explained the same.
3. Not satisfied with the response of the public authority, the appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission.
4. The matter was heard today. The appellant submitted that action taken on his complaint had not been provided by the CPIO along with the details of the investigation conducted and persons involved thereto.
5. The respondents submitted that based on the complaint dated 12/12/2012 against M/s. TNT India investigation was conducted on 23/12/2012 and a public notice was issued in the matter. The final action taken on the appellant’s complaint was communicated separately to the appellant vide letter dated 10. 4.2013. The copy of the full investigation report and ATR report conducted by Shri Suresh Nair and other details i.e., names and designations of officers involved in this case, may not be provided since it is the internal matter of IRDA and attracts section 8(1)(d) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; of the RTI Act, 2005. The investigation report contains information about the commercial confidence of the third party disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of third party i.e., M/s. TNT India Pvt. Ltd. The respondents finally submitted that the CIC in appeal no.CIC/DS/A/2012/001483 dated 14.3.2013 asked the public authority to take an early decision and provide the outcome of the enquiry to the appellant. Subsequent to this order of the CIC, only the public notice dated 5.4.2013 had been issued and a copy was provided to the appellant. Hence, the information as held has been provided to the appellant.
Decision Notice
6. The Commission accepts the respondent’s submissions. The appeal is disposed of.
(Manjula Prasher)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Nilesh Prabhu v. Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority in Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2013/001600/MP