Information relating to insurance policy in respect of tempo trucker was denied u/s 8(1)(j), (d) &(e) while part information relating to motor policy was provided by PIO - FAA: PIO had erred in providing the information - CIC: appeal dismissed

ORDER

Facts:

1. The appellant Shri Perettil R. Yatheedranathan has submitted RTI application dated 05 November 2012 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), New India Assurance Co Ltd., Kochin; seeking information relating to the Insurance policy in respect of tempo trucker KL01G/ 5590 for the entire year 1999.

2. Vide CPIO order dated 23 November 2012 (intimation for payment) & 10 January 2013, CPIO furnished the requisite information point wise to the appellant.

3. Not satisfied by the CPIO’s reply, the appellant preferred First Appeal to the First Appellate Authority (FAA) dated 20 January 2013.

4. Vide FAA order dated 30 January 2013, the FAA held that the information desired by the appellant is a third party information and comes under Commercial Confidence between the parties concerned and our Company, hence the same should not have been disclosed under 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 RTI Act, read with 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; & section 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the 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 available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; by the CPIO and also no public interest is justified in this case, therefore, information sought cannot be provided.

5. The matter was heard today. The appellant Shri P. Yatheendranathan attended the hearing and expressed his dissatisfaction over the order of the FAA, according to which the information desired by the appellant was refused it being a third party information and also as it falls under Commercial Confidence between the party concerned and NIACL. Therefore the respondents had sought protection under 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 read with 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 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the 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 available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; of the Act. They stated that there is no larger public interest which justified the disclosure of the information and also that disclosure would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the third party concerned. The appellant submitted that part information relating to the motor policy has been provided to him already by the CPIO. To this the FAA explained that the CPIO had erred in judgment in providing the information. During the hearing however, the appellant could not justify of any larger public interest for which the information relating to a third party should be disclosed to him.

Decision notice

7. In view of the above the appeal is dismissed and the case is closed at the Commission’s end.

(Manjula Prasher)

Information Commissioner

Citation: Shri Perettil R Yatheedranathan v. New India Assurance Co Ltd, in Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2013/000399/MP