Information regarding a Consumer Forum case & Motor Own Damage case was sought - CIC: information sought is third party information held in fiduciary capacity by United India Insurance; investigation is also in progress; denial upheld

Facts:

1. The appellant, Shri C J S Arora, submitted RTI application dated 16 April 2013 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), United India Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi; seeking information regarding complete file of Consumer Forum case titled as Prem Kumari Vs. UIICL, no. 762/2007 and photocopies of complete Motor Own Damage (Theft case of Mrs. Prem Kumari, Claim no.: 040400/31/04/0304 & Policy No.040400/31/02/4129), through a total of 2 points.

2. Vide reply dated 30 April 2013, the CPIO denied the information sought on the ground that the information sought is held with them in their Company’s fiduciary relation with the customer and personal information pertaining to customer, and that the disclosure of the same would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual. This was therefore, exempt u/s 8(1)(e), 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. & 11 of the RTI Act, 2005. Aggrieved by the decision of the CPIO, the appellant preferred appeal dated 14 May 2013 before the first appellate authority (FAA) stating that the CPIO wrongly denied the information. Vide order dated 27 May 2013, the FAA upheld the decision of CPIO.

3. Not satisfied with the response of the public authority, the appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission.

4. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant submitted that there is case against him pending in Consumer Court & Tis Hazari court, Delhi against him and in order to defend himself he needs this information. The respondent submitted that the information sought is available with them in the fiduciary capacity and is personal information of the customer and is exempted from disclosure u/s 8(1)(e), 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. & 11 of the RTI Act, 2005, hence cannot be furnished to the appellant. The respondent also mentioned before the Commission that investigation are also going on in the matter.

5. After hearing both the parties, the Commission is of the view that the information sought by the appellant cannot be provided to him being third party personal information held with the public authority in fiduciary capacity. During hearing the respondent also mentioned that investigations are also going on in the matter, hence the information sought by the appellant is exempted u/s 8(1)(h) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; of the RTI Act, 2005. The Commission tends to agree with the respondents and upholds the decision. In view of the above, the appeal is disposed of.

(Manjula Prasher)

Information Commissioner

Citation: Shri C J S Arora v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. in Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2013/001624/MP