A.VENKATESAN Vs. STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. I.C.Vasudevan, Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Mr. Niranjan Rajagopal Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the First Respondent, Mr. R.Venkatesh, Learned Government Advocate appearing for the Second to Fifth Respondents and Mr. K.Thirunavukkarasu, Learned Counsel appearing for the Sixth Respondent and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.

(2.) The Sixth Respondent, viz., New India Assurance Co., Ltd., had received notice in a proceeding before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal claiming compensation for the victim in an accident involving the vehicle bearing Registration No. TN-07-A5 6214 said to have been insured with it. The services of the Petitioner was engaged as 'investigator' by the Sixth Respondent to collect copies of the documents relating that accident and the vehicle involved from the concerned persons including the police authorities. The erstwhile practice followed had been that such investigators engaged by the insurers would collect copies of the required documents from the concerned persons and police authorities and submit their investigation report for enabling the insurers to effectively conduct the proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. However, after the advent of the Detailed Accident Report (DAR) regime from 01.03.2017 onwards in the State of Tamil Nadu, as approved by this Court in Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co., Ltd., -vs-Inspector of Police, Cuddalore (Order dated 12.09.2017 in Crl.O.P. No. 18110 of 2016), following the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Jai Prakash -vs- National Insurance Co., Ltd., (Order dated 13.05.2016 in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 11801-11804 of 2005), the practice of furnishing manual copies of the documents by the Police Authorities has been dispensed with, as the stake-holders can download copies of those documents from the Crime and Criminal Tracking Network System (CCTNS) portal of the Police Department in the internet. According to the Petitioner, most of the documents required by the Sixth Respondent had not been hosted in the CCTNS portal of the Police Department in the internet, which necessitated the Petitioner to make application dated 28.01.2019 to the police authorities, who are the Second to Fifth Respondents in this Writ Petition, under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, for furnishing manual copies of the required documents, but that request has been declined. Claiming to be aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging those orders of refusal and has sought for consequential direction to the police authorities to furnish copies of those documents.

(3.) The Fifth Respondent has filed counter-affidavit dated 26.07.2019 stating that all documents sought relating to the accident and vehicle in question have been uploaded on 05.12.2018 in the CCTNS portal of the Police Department in the internet, which could be downloaded by the Sixth Respondent on payment of prescribed fees.