CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION .....
Dated, the 30th January, 2009.
Appellant : Shri Rajendra G. Parikh
Respondents : The New India Assurance Company Limited
This matter came up for hearing on 14.01.2009. Appellant was present
through his Counsel, Ms.Mili V. Thakkar, while the respondents were
represented by Shri J.P. Sheokand.
2. Through his RTI-application dated 17.07.2008, appellant asked for a set
of detailed information regarding a Surveyor engaged by the public authority,
viz. The New India Assurance Company Limited, Mumbai. Appellant had
provided in his RTI-application a proforma in which the details relating to the
Surveyor, Shri Kaushal Kishore were to be furnished by the respondents.
Apart from the above, appellant also enquired about a certain Survey Allotment
Register for jobs assigned by the public authority to its Surveyors.
3. It was stated by the appellant’s Counsel during the hearing that it was the
appellant’s belief that this Surveyor was in the habit of rejecting most of the
insurance claims made by the insured parties. Through the disclosure of
information as requested by the appellant, he wished to expose the fact that
maximum number of claims were rejected by this particular Surveyor.
4. Respondents stated that treating the requested information as a third-party
information related to the Surveyor, Shri Kaushal Kishore, he was requested
under Section 11(1) to give his consent for the disclosure of the requested
information. Shri Kaushal Kishore objected to the proposed disclosure.
On further examination, respondents found that the information requested by the
appellant fell within the exemption under Section 8(1)(d) as well as Section
8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
5. It is obvious from the type of request the appellant has made, that the
respondents will have to cull out the requested information from a large number
of files, if this information were to be supplied to the appellant. There is no
Page 1 of 2
single place or record in which this information is automatically monitored and
6. However, during the hearing it was mentioned by the respondents that the
public authority maintains a certain Register captioned Surveyors Appointment
Register, which contained various columns for the work assignment and the work
carried out by the Surveyors. Respondents stated they had no objection to
disclosure of the above mentioned Register to the appellant.
7. It is, therefore, directed that the Register as mentioned in the preceding
paragraph may be allowed to be inspected by the appellant on a date and time to
be intimated to him within the next two weeks of the receipt of this order.
8. Appeal disposed of with these directions.
9. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI )
Page 2 of 2