Skip to main content

Display Vital information pertaining to rules for insurance claims On Website

In Kanchan Alok v. CPIO, National Insurance Company Limited, the Commission observed that Issues raised in RTI application related to rules/guidelines primarily relating to transfer related papers to insurer post sanction of claim in vehicle theft case which ought to be suo motu disclosed as per Section 4 of RTI Act, 2005. Though Respondent submitted that all such information has been disseminated, it is essential that vital and critical information pertaining to rules for insurance claims should be widely disseminated and displayed on the website for the benefit of all concerned.

The Central Information Commission observed that, there is complete negligence and laxity in public authority in dealing with RTI applications. It is abundantly clear that, such matters are being ignored and set aside without application of mind which reflects disrespect towards Right to Information Act, 2005 itself. Commission expressed its displeasure on casual and callous approach adopted by Respondent in responding to RTI application. Conduct of Respondent was against spirit of RTI Act, 2005 which was enacted to ensure greater transparency and effective access to the information. It is evident that, no reply had been provided by Respondent in the matter, which is a grave violation of provisions of RTI Act, 2005. Commission, instructs CPIO to show-cause why action should not be taken under the provisions of the Act for this misconduct and negligence.

Public Authority is advised to re-examine methodology by which RTI applications are dealt with in their office and evolve a robust mechanism for quick disposal of RTI matters in letter and spirit respecting provisions of RTI Act. It was felt that, being a service related organization, it must be fully geared to address the needs and requirements of its clients expeditiously. With innovations and explosion of technological tools available in country, Public Authority must make concerted efforts to improve its service delivery mechanism in the interest of its customer. Commission directs CPIO, Delhi to provide certified copy of information sought to Appellant within a period of 15 days from date of receipt of this order. In view of unconditional apology tendered by the then CPIO, show cause proceedings in the matter stand dropped.


Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

Procedure to be followed on admissibility of additional evidence at appeal stage

In The Corporation of Madras vs M. Parthasarathy & Ors., the trial court had allowed the respondent company to file evidence in the form of photocopies and had dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs as the evidence were in the form of photocopies and were objected to by the respondents. On appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the respondents to file additional evidence in the form the original documents of the earlier admitted photocopies and based on the same allowed the appeal. In its turn the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants who in turn approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals.  Referring to earlier judgements of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., , Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineri...
Post a Comment
Read more