Part information regarding appointment of agents at LIC was denied u/s 8(1)(d) - Appellant: information given by the respondent is incorrect - CIC: check the information and provide the same with reference to the number and names of RCAs recruited
5 May, 2014Information regarding appointment of agents at LIC was sought - Part information was provided while part was denied u/s 8(1)(d) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; - Appellant: PIO had intimated that only 2 rural career agents were recruited in the year 2011-12, however, he himself was also recruited in the same year therefore, information given by the respondent is incorrect - CIC: check the information relating to the recruitment of rural career agents (RCAs) in the year, 20112012 and provide the information to the appellant with reference to the number and names of RCAs recruited
ORDER
Facts:
1. The appellant, Shri Pramod Kumar Baswana had submitted the RTI application dated 14 January 2013 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Life Insurance Corporation of India, Rohtak, seeking information with regard to establishment of LIC Sirsa, appointment of agents at Life Insurance Corporation of India, Sirsa, their salary etc. through a total of 5 points.
2. The appellant vide letter dated 16.02.2013 file an appeal to the first appellate authority (FAA) on the ground that he has not received any reply from the CPIO within stipulated time. Although vide reply dated 14.02.2013 CPIO has provided the pointwise information by claiming the exemption of section 8 (1)(d) on point 3.
3. On not receiving any order from the FAA, the appellant made an appeal before the Commission on the ground that the CPIO had provided wrong and malafide information and wrongly claimed exemption under section 8(1)(d) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; of the Act.
4. The appellant stated that he had been given incomplete and incorrect information with reference to advertisement given for recruiting agents, the salary given to the agents and the number of agents, who were appointed in the year 20112012 as a result of the advertisement pertaining to that year.
5. The respondent submitted that all the points raised by the appellant had been duly replied to and that they had also sent a reply enclosing the copy of the advertisement etc vide their letter dated 01.04.2014. They stated that no advertisements were given for appointing of agents. However, the Head Office had given an advertisement for appointing Rural Career Agents in the year, 2011. They added that the agents are not given any salary. They earn commission based on the business brought by them. Even though for rural career agents, a stipend of Rs.1,500/had been offered. They further submitted that as per the records available with them they had correctly intimated that 2 rural career agents were recruited in the year, 20112012. This was contested by the appellant who said that he was also recruited in the same year and, therefore, information given by the respondent is incorrect. The respondent proposed to have the records rechecked. The appellant also asked whether the salary was not being given to them. The respondent stated that question of giving salary does not arise.
Decision Notice
6. The CPIO will check the information relating to the recruitment of rural career agents (RCAs) in the year, 20112012 and provide the information to the appellant with reference to the number and names of RCAs recruited. The CPIO will send a copy of the letter dated 1.4.2014 to the appellant.
7. Action on the above points should be completed within one week of the receipt of the order of the Commission.
(Manjula Prasher)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Pramod Kumar Baswana v. Life Insurance Corporation of India in Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2013/000998/MP