Asok Kr. Dikshit vs State Bank Of India on 24 February, 2020

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Asok Kr. Dikshit vs State Bank Of India on 24 February, 2020

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated nil include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 17.01.2018 and first appeal dated 27.02.2018:-

(i) Please provide a copy of order passed by competent Authority of either SBI or Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI) that SBI General Insurance Mandatory for Home loan buyer.

Page 1 of 4

(ii) Please provide a copy of vigilance officer name and address who is observing accountability of home loan related activity passed by Assistant General Manager (AGM), RACPC, Sec. 16, Faridabad.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 17.01.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Faridabad, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO did not reply. Dissatisfied with the non-response of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal dated 26.02.2018. Later the CPIO replied on 27.02.2018.The First Appellate Authority disposed of the first appeal vide order dated 26.03.2018. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed a second appeal dated nil before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant filed the instant appeal dated nil inter alia on the grounds that the respondent did not provide the information and requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide complete information.

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 27.02.2018 provided the copy of circular issued by the bank containing the information regarding insurance of property and submitted that no specific vigilance officer was designated for observing accountability of home loan related activity passed by AGM, RACPC, Faridabad. The FAA cautioned the CPIO to provide timely reply to the appellants in future and disposed of the first appeal.

5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Ms Vandana Sharma, Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Delhi, attended the hearing in person.

5.1. The respondent submitted that the bank through several circulars reflecting the mandate for general insurance before sanctioning home loan and that the insurance cost in case of an insured property would be borne by the borrower. The respondent Page 2 of 4 further submitted that the clause for insurance was also incorporated in the arrangement letter for home loan.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, notes that due reply was provided to the appellant vide letter dated 27.02.2018. However, keeping in view of the fact that the appellant remained absent and it could not be ascertained as to whether the information was received by him, the respondent is directed that a copy of the arrangement letter along with the reply dated 01.03.2018 be made available to the appellant again within ten days. With these directions, the appeal is disposed of.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 24.02.2020 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :

1. STATE BANK OF INDIA RACPC, SCO - 98, 1ST & 2ND FLOOR, SEC. - 16, FARIDABAD -121 002 THE F.A.A, GENERAL MANAGER (NW-1), STATE BANK OF INDIA, 10TH FLOOR, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, 11, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI - 110 001 ASOK Kr. DIKSHIT Page 3 of 4 Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission