Nema Ram vs State Bank Of India on 21 January, 2021

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Nema Ram vs State Bank Of India on 21 January, 2021

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 27.06.2018 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 10.01.2018 and first appeal dated 22.02.2018:-

(i) यह है क दनांक १६ नव बर २०१७ को म ने SBI के ATM जो क गंगा साद पे ोल प प मेडला िसटी के सामने ि थत है से अपने खाते से ATM से १०००/- $. िनकलवाये थे उसके बाद ATM मशीन के बटन से &या क िसल करके बहार आ गया उसके करीब दस िमनट बाद मेरे खाते से 38000/- )पये िनकलने का मैसेज आया जी क Online िशकायत म* मेरे खाते से )पये िनकलना बताया गया है जो क मेरे खाते से चोरी है | Page 1 of 6

(ii) यह है क मुझे दनांक १६ नवे बर २०१७ के ATM म* लगे कै मरे के फु टेज क ित उपल/ध करवाये ता क मुझे जानकारी हो सके क वा तव म* )पये िनकले है या कोई तकिनक 2ुटी के कारण 4आ है |

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 10.01.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Nagaur, Rajasthan, seeking aforesaid information. Dissatisfied with the non- response of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal dated 22.02.2018. Subsequently, the CPIO replied on 16.03.2018 and 27.03.2018. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) did not pass any order. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed a second appeal dated 27.06.2018 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant filed the instant appeal dated 27.06.2018 inter alia on the grounds that reply given by the CPIO was incomplete. The appellant has requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide information immediately and take necessary action as per sub-sections (1) & (2) of section 20 of the RTI Act.

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 16.03.2018 replied that CCTV footage could be given only to the cardholder and the appellant had neither provided any account number nor ATM card number. They requested the appellant to provide the complete details so that proper reply could be sent. Subsequently, the CPIO vide letter dated 27.03.2018 expressed their inability to provide the CCTV footage of the alleged transaction as the same was more than 90 days old. The FAA did not pass any order.

Hearing on 23.06.2020 4.1. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent, Shri Sanjay Malik, Asstt. General Manager & CPIO, State Bank of India, Nagaur attended the hearing through audio conference.

Interim order dated 23.07.2020 4.2. The Commission has passed the following observations/directions on 23.07.2020:

"6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, notes that information sought has Page 2 of 6 not been provided by the respondent even after lapse of around of more than two years from the date of filing of this RTI application. Perusal of the reply dated 27.03.2018 reveals that the CCTV footage of the alleged transaction could not be provided as the same was preserved up-to 90 days only. It is pertinent to mention that despite the fact that the RTI application was filed within 90 days from the date of alleged transaction, that CCTV footage has not been provided. Moreover, the respondent failed to justify the reasons for non-furnishing of CCTV footage to the appellant, under the circumstances. In view of this, the Registry of this Bench is directed to issue a Show-Cause notice to Shri D.C. Goel, the then CPIO and Shri Sanjay Mallik, the present CPIO, State Bank of India, Regional Business Office-5, Nagaur, Rajasthan, as to why action under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act should not be initiated against each of them for not providing the information to the appellant. The present CPIO, Shri Sanjay Mallik is given a responsibility to serve a copy of this order as well as show-cause notice to the then CPIO, Shri D.C. Goel and secure his written explanations. All the written explanations (from both the CPIOs) must reach the Commission within three weeks. Meanwhile, the respondent is directed to provide the revised information to the appellant, within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

Hearing on 30.12.2020

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Dinesh Chandra Goyal, then CPIO, State Bank of India, Nagaur, attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that he went to an SBI ATM to withdraw an amount of Rs. 1000/- on 16.11.2017. However, money could not be dispensed due to failure of transactions and after 15 to 20 minutes of the aforesaid failed transactions an amount of Rs. 38000/- had been fraudulently withdrawn from his account. On the very next day i.e., 17.11.2017, he filed an FIR and subsequently filed this RTI application to get CCTV footage of the ATM from where aforesaid fraudulent transaction was made. However, the same had not been provided by the respondent till the date of hearing.

Page 3 of 6

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that when the FIR was filed by the appellant regarding transactions made in his account, a copy of CCTV footage was provided to the Police authority for investigation and the same was accepted by the appellant in his complaint to the Banking Ombudsman. A copy of the appellant's complaint sent to Banking Ombudsman was placed on record. They further submitted that in their reply dated 16.03.2018 that they had clearly informed that CCTV footage could be provided only to the card holder/account holder and the appellant had not given any account number or card number by which such transaction was made. Accordingly, they requested the appellant to submit necessary details so that CCTV footage, if available, could be provided to the appellant. However, the appellant did not provide any such details and further the first appeal was also not received by the respondent due to incorrect address. Subsequently, the respondent informed that CCTV footage as sought by the appellant was not available on record as the same were preserved for 90 days only. They further submitted that the appellant had also filed a case before Banking Ombudsman and District Consumer Forum and the matter was sub-judice. They explained that it was not so that they had arbitrarily denied the information to the appellant. Since, the information sought was not available at belated stage, hence, it could not be given to the appellant. However, they contended that CCTV footage was provided to the police authorities during the investigation. Thus, there was no mala fide on their part in responding to the RTI application. Besides, they tendered unconditional apology for the inconvenience caused to the appellant as well as the Commission.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observes that the CCTV footage of particular ATM as sought by the appellant was denied on the ground that it was preserved only for the period of 90 days. Further it is also noted that at the time of investigation CCTV footage was given to the police authority and the same was admitted by the appellant. Subsequently, the respondent had expressed their inability to provide the CCTV footage due to its non-availability. Further, particulars like card number or account number sought by the respondent were also not provided by the appellant to enable them to provide the desired information within the stipulated time.

Page 4 of 6

Thus, it cannot be said that the respondent had consciously and deliberately withheld the information sought by the appellant. The Commission also finds that submissions made by the respondent are reasonable. Further in the absence of any mala fide on part of the CPIOs and considering their unconditional apology, it would not be appropriate to impose penalty on the respondent. In view of the aforementioned reasons and in the absence of any mala fide, the show cause notices issued to Shri D.C. Goel, the then CPIO and Shri Sanjay Mallik, the present CPIO, State Bank of India, Regional Business Office-5, Nagaur, Rajasthan, are hereby dropped. With the above observation, the appeal is disposed of.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

SD/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेशचं ा) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) िदनां क/Date: 19.01.2021 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराममूत ) Dy. Registrar (उपपंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :

1. Sh. SANJAY MALLIK (C.P.I.O) STATE BANK OF INDIA, Regional Business Office-5, PHED Colony, In front of Girls college, Nagaur (Raj.) - 341001 (for forwarding to the then C.P.I.O Sh. D.C. GOEL)

2. Sh. SANJAY MALLIK (C.P.I.O) STATE BANK OF INDIA, Regional Business Office-5, PHED Colony, In front of Girls college, Nagaur (Raj.) - 341001 Page 5 of 6 NEMA RAM Page 6 of 6

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission