Amount of compensation awarded in respect of certain burn case was denied u/s 8(1)(d) & 8(1)(j) - PIO: assurance contract is a privileged document divulgence of which shall affect privacy - CIC: no larger public interest established; appeal rejected

ORDER

Facts:

1. Appellant submitted RTI application dated 10 May 2010 before the PIO/Branch Manager, The New India Insurance Company Ltd., Osmanabad, Maharashtra, seeking information relating to the amount of compensation sanctioned and awarded to Hemurana Sutmil Fulwadi (Itkal) at Itkal Tq. Tuljapur Dist. Osmanabad, Maharashtra in respect of burn case through multiple points.

2. Appellant preferred First Appeal to the First Appellate Authority dated 18 July 2012 as he had not received any information from the concerned PIO.

3. Vide FAA Order dated 01 August 2012, the FAA that the information sought is a third party information which cannot be provided since an assurance contract is a privileged document divulgence of which shall affect privity of the contract which is otherwise exempt under 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; i.e. “commercial confidence” as well as section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. i.e., “third party” of the RTI Act, 2005.

4. Being aggrieved and not satisfied by the above response of the Public Authority, the Appellant preferred Second Appeal before the Commission.

5. Matter was heard today via videoconferencing. Appellant was present at Osmanabad while Respondents made submissions from Pune and Mumbai.

Decision Notice

6. After hearing the submissions of the parties, Commission is of the view that the information sought by the Appellant 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; and section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act, 2005 and further no larger public interest has been established by the Appellant for the disclosure of ‘personal information’ pertaining to third party. Hence, FAA’s Order is upheld and the present appeal is dismissed.

7. With the above observation, Case is closed at the Commission’s end.

(Smt. Deepak Sandhu)

Chief Information Commissioner

Citation: Dr. Nasiruddin Mehboob Kazi v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., in Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2012/002249