PIO: copy of the registration certification of a vehicle containing the address, is given to only to Police/ insurance company / owner on payment of Rs. 50 rule under the Motor Vehicles Act - CIC: provide information where same regd given to more than one
The appellant is present. The Public Authority is represented by Mr. V.D.Sharma, Transport Department, GNCTD, Delhi.
2. The appellant filed the above two appeals against the same public authority and hence they are heard together today.
3. The appellant submitted that through his first RTI application dated 3052013, in File No.CIC/DS/A/2013/002620SA, he was seeking certified copies of ownership details of 99 vehicles as listed in his RTI application. The PIO has given reply by his letter dated 2962013. The appellant filed first appeal before the FAA. The FAA by his order dated 2282013, directed all the MLOs/PIOs to provide information to the appellant within 15 days free of cost.
4. Through the second RTI application dated 1742013, dealt in File No.CIC/DS/A/2013/002623SA, the appellant is seeking the certified copies of Jumping numbers allotted to the Transport Commissioner of Delhi and the copies of allotment letters showing the jumping number 9999, etc. Having received no reply within the prescribed period, the appellant filed first appeal before the FAA, who by his order dated 2282013, directed the MLO/PIO to provide the information within 15 days free of cost.
5. Claiming that the respondent authority has not furnished the complete information, the appellant filed 2nd appeal before the Commission in both the above appeals.
6. Both the parties made their submissions. In the first case [CIC/DS/A/2013/002620SA], the appellant submitted that the respondent authority had given same registration number to two vehicles, which would cause problem to the other, if one was involved in any accident. That is why, he is seeking the addresses and the ownership details of 396 vehicles. It will help resolving duplication and force Respondent Authority to be very careful in allocating registration numbers. The respondent authority submitted that the complete copy of the registration certification of a vehicle, containing the address also, was only given to three categories of people, namely, of Police investigation, insurance company and the owners, on payment of Rs.50/- across the counter. This is the rule under the Motor Vehicles Act. These details are also being supplied by some officials of the respondent authority, on payment of RTI application fee of Rs.10/. The Commission asked the respondent officers how a person can decide to purchase a vehicle without verifying these ownership and encumbrance details etc. As the respondent authority is not clear in this aspect, the Commission directs the MLOs/PIOs of the respondent authority to provide the addresses of the owners in cases where same registration number is given to more than one owner. In other cases, the appellant shall be provided the details without the addresses of the owners, provided the respondent authority can separate the addresses from the registration certificates. These directions shall be complied within 21 days from the date of issue of this order.
7. In the second case [CIC/DS/A/2013/002623SA], the appellant submitted that he wanted the details of those registration numbers, which were not given serial wise (jumping) to certain VIPs, etc. as specified by them, particularly the number 9999. The respondent authority submitted at present there was no jumping of the registration numbers. Inspite of this, they promised to look into the request of the appellant and provide the information. Accordingly, the Commission directs the respondent authority to apply their mind seriously to the RTI application and provide the desired information to the appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
8. The above two appeals are disposed of accordingly.
(M. Sridhar Acharyulu)
Citation: Mr. Harkishan Das Nijhawan v. Transport Department in (1)File No.CIC/DS/A/2013/002620SA (2) File No. CIC/DS/A/2013/002623SA