SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 4392

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Vinod Kumar Tiwari, Information Commissioner
Divyank Dixit – Appellant
Versus
CPIO, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. – Respondent
CIC/UIICL/A/2024/622015 | CIC/UIICL/A/2024/634674



Advocates:
For the Appellant: Divyank Dixit
For the Respondent: Not represented

RTI applicants have a right to receive information without undue barriers or vague denials by public authorities under the RTI Act.

Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Sections 2(f), 4(1)(b), 8(1)(d) - RTI application filed seeking information related to insurance policy - Denial of information by CPIO on grounds of exemption under the Act is scrutinized; lack of application of mind noted - The Commission emphasizes the public Right to Information and addresses the unjustified demands for costs beyond scanning fees. Findings direct compliance from CPIO for providing necessary details free of charge. (Paras 12-20)

(B) Routine of the CPIO in handling RTI requests - Obligation under RTI Act to assist applicants is affirmed by deliberation on various grounds of grievance by appellant during proceedings before the Commission.

Table of Content
1. core facts and procedures of rti applications are laid out. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. cpio's obligations and effective communication requirements under the rti act are reiterated. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
3. final directive emphasizes compliance for provision of requested information. (Para 20)

Information sought:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.03.2024 (online) seeking the following information:

“I took 2 wheeler policy no. **********194228 from UIIC. I made a claim in IFFCO Tokio Previous policy. I refunded Rs. 499/ as NCB recovery on 16/3/24 vide reference number UA0592187708. Insurance co. is asking vehicle inspection without any authority of law. I seek the following information under RTI Act.

1. Date wise Action taken on my Email dated 24/02/24 sent to UIIC customer care from my Email ID-*******8@rediffmail.com and subsequent reminders on 01/03/24, 04/03/24, 11/03/24, 14/03/24, 15/03/24, 17/03/24 and 19/03/24.

2. Certified copy of terms and conditions agreed at the time of booking of policy.

3. Authority/ Rules certified copy under which vehicle inspection is being sought.

4. Name, address and contact number of Grievance Officer, Chief Grievance Officer, Ombudsman. The said information is not available on web page. Reason for not making available these information may be given.

5. Certified copy of policy endorsement letter issued till date.”

2. The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 19.04.2024 stating as under:

“POINT NO. 1 The information is exempted under section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005.

POINT NO. 2 and POINT NO. 5 The information consists of 11 pages.

you are requested to deposit the photocopy charges along with postal charges of Rs. 22 (Rs.2/- per page A4 size) plus Rs.50/- i.e. total of Rs. 77/- Letter Attached POINT NO. 3 The information is exempted under Section8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005.

POINT NO. 4 The information required for raising a grievance is mentioned on our website www.uiic.co.in. under grievance section.”

3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 24.04.2024.

The FAA vide its order dated 22.05.2024, held as under:

“Reply: Reply to point no. 1 The information is exempted under Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act 2005.

Reply to point no. 2 E-signed soft copy attached.

Reply to point no. 3 The information is exempted under Section 8 (1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005.

Reply to Point no. 4 Anuradha Dwivedi, Manager Uni Customer Care Department, New Delhi. Scope Minar Complex, Core I, Floor no. 2, Laxmi Nagar, District Centre, Delhi 110092.

Email address customercare.delhiz@uiic.co.in These details are available on www.uiic.co.in under grievance section as already informed in RTI reply as well.

For ombudsman details please check through Ombudsman site.

Reply to point no. 5 Soft copy of endorsement attached.

For hard copies of policy and endorsements, the required additional fee has to be paid.

The same can be paid through demand draft in favour of the public Authority.

With this your appeal is disposed off fully.”

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the following grounds-

(a)` In Question No. 1 of RTI application, I sought Date wise action taken on my various E-mails and subsequent reminders which CPIO replied that it is exempted under Section 2 (f) of RTI Act and FAA also concurred the same. It is humbly submitted that (f) defines word ‘Information’. In my case I am policy holder and there were issues w.r.t motor policy hence I sent emails on official email id of UIICL. I sought the action taken on those mails which very well falls within the definition of ‘information’. CPIO and FAA has rejected the information without application of mind.

(b) In question no. 2, I sought certified copy of terms and conditions E-signed during booking of policy. CPIO has replied that information is containing 11 pages and Rs. 77/ is required to be paid by DD/IPO/Online. In letter CPIO has written Rs. 72/ is required

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top