Bimal Julka DECISION
Bimal Julka, Information Commissioner
Facts:
1. The appellant, vide her RTI application sought information regarding certified copy of extracts of rule/regulation/manual/policies/guidelines clarifying Para-2 of her RTI application, primarily relating to transfer related papers to insurer post sanction of claim in vehicle theft case and issues related thereto.
2. Dissatisfied on not receiving any response from the CPIO, the appellant approached the FAA. The reply of the CPIO or the order of the FAA, if any, is not available in the record of the Commission.
"HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing on 14.02.2017:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Alok Kumar (M: 9811665202) appellant's representative;
Respondent: Dr. G.S. Bhadauria, Dy. Manager, National Insurance Company, New Delhi (M:7704900133); Mr. A.K. Goel, Dy. Manager (M: 9643003445); and Mrs. Suman Gupta, Dy. Manager (M:9810449575);"
3. The appellant's representative reiterated the contents of RTI application and stated that the desired information had not been provided. In reply, the respondent explained that as APIO, they had submitted their information to the CPIO who had since been transferred and they could not retrieve the updated status. No explanation could be offered regarding the decision taken on the first appeal filed by the appellant. It was informed that the FAA had since retired. The appellant's representative raised a fundamental issue regarding the procedure involved in settlement of a claim in vehicle theft case and argued that no clear cut guidelines had been published or displayed anywhere, in order to facilitate the customer to redress his grievance. The respondent clarified that the claim procedure is notified on its website but agreed that it needs certain refinement for the benefit of the end user. It was observed by the Commission that due to lack of clarity in the laid down procedures and guidelines in the larger public interest, it causes immense hardship to the customers who opt for such facility to protect themselves against unforeseen circumstances. The respondent organization was advised to evolve customer friendly, specific guidelines to be followed in such circumstances so as to minimize the hardship being caused to the beneficiaries.
4. The Commission observed that there is complete negligence and laxity in the public authority in dealing with the RTI applications. It is abundantly clear that such matters are being ignored and set aside without application of mind which reflects disrespect towards the RTI Act, 2005 itself. The Commission expressed its displeasure on the casual and callous approach adopted by the respondent in responding to the RTI application. It was felt that the conduct of respondent was against the spirit of the RTI Act, 2005 which was enacted to ensure greater transparency and effective access to the information.
DECISION
5. Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, it is evident that no reply had been provided by the respondent in the matter, which is a grave violation of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The Commission, instructs the CPIO to show-cause why action should not be taken under the provisions of the Act for this misconduct and negligence. The Commission therefore, directs the respondent to:
"1- provide the information to the appellant within a period of 10 days;
2- explain why penal action should not be taken as per Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, within 15 days; from the date of receipt of this order."
6. The appeal stands disposed with the above direction.
"Note: Subsequent to receipt of reply to the show cause notice dated 10.03.2017, the Commission vide its letter dated 31/03/2017 decided to provide an opportunity of personal hearing before the Commission on 11/04/2017.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the show-cause hearing on 11.04.2017:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Alok Kumar (M:9811665202) husband of the Appellant represent........