Central Information Commission
Room No.296, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New
Delhi110066
Telefax:01126180532 & 01126107254 websitecic.gov.in
Complaint : No. CIC/DS/C/2010/000526 &
CIC/DS/A/2010/000502
Appellant /Complainant : Mrs. Abha Chawla Mohanty, Mumbai
Public Authority : The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Mumbai
(Mrs. Mangala Nilekani, CPIO and Mr.
Mohapatra, Manager - through video
Conferencing)
Date of Hearing : 8/11/2010
Date of Decision : 8/11/2010
Facts
:
1. Smt. Abha Chawla Mohanty sought information from the CPIO, The
Oriental Insurance Company Limited, MR0 II, Mumbai vide RTI application dated
16 May, 2009 through 16 points enclosed herewith as Annexure A.
2. Not receiving any response from the CPIO, the applicant preferred
complaint before the Commission. The matter was heard today through
videoconferencing. Both parties were present as above and presented
arguments.
3. Respondent stated that there had been a delay in responding to the
complainant since she had preferred other RTI applications and the matter had
been inadvertently lost sight of. However information was provided on 20
November 2009. Appellant stated that this was only partial information and that
she had and the instance of the respondents deposited an amount of Rs. 2200/
on 6 November, 2009 against which he had still not received any information.
Decision
4. Commission takes a serious note of the fact that even after five years of
the implementation of the RTI Act, respondent has sought fees from the appellant
which is not in consonance with the fee structure framed under The Right to
Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2005. The respondent has
provided breakup of the fee sought to be charged vide letter which does not bear
a date and presented heads of charge which do not appear under the above
mentioned rules. The Commission is even more grave on account of the fact that
even after the unjustified demand for fees was met by the appellant the
information was still not provided. This is indeed a very poor reflection of the
commitment of the company to the implementation of the RTI Act.
5. Commission directs the respondent to refund the full amount of Rs. 2200
to the appellant and provide full and complete information to the appellant within
two weeks of receipt of the order.
6. During the course of the hearing it was brought to the notice of the
Commission that six other RTI applications and two noncompliance issues are
pending with the respondent relating to the present complainant. Respondent is
directed to revisit these applications and dispose them as per the provisions of
the RTI act within six weeks thereafter. It is a matter of great regret that in order
to obtain information on routine administrative matters a former employee of the
company has two come before the Commission in second appeal and is a poor
reflection on the lack of transparency in the running of the organization.
7. Respondent is directed to educate themselves on the provisions of the
RTI Act, 200, it’s letter and spirit and move in the direction of greater
transparency leading to enhanced accountability and efficiency in the running of
the organization.
8. In this case the Commission takes a generous view and drops proposed
penalty proceedings in view of the commitment of the respondent to embrace the
RTI Act and its liberal regime.
(Smt. Deepak Sandhu)
Information Commissioner (DS)
Authenticated true copy:
(T. K. Mohapatra)
Under Secretary & Dy. Registrar
Tel No. 01126105027
Copy to:
1. Mrs.Abha Chawla Mohanty
C/o 1504, Rusabh J.B. Road,
Sewri, Mumbai400015
2. Mrs. Mangala Nilekani
CPIO, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
MROII, 7, J.D. Tata Road
Churchgate, Mumbai400020
3. The Appellate Authority
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
MROII, 7, J.D. Tata Road
Churchgate, Mumbai400020