Nitin Chhabra vs Canara Bank on 14 October, 2022

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Nitin Chhabra vs Canara Bank on 14 October, 2022

1. The issue under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 29.05.2020 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 08.01.2020 and first appeal dated 14.02.2020:-

"शाखा ारा भरे गए दूकान और वहां रखे Stock स बंिधत अि म भरे गए बीिमत कागजात और अ य स बंिधत कागजात क जांच हेतु िभजवाने के िलए माह 8/18 से शाखा और आपसे िलिखत प / ि गत संपक ारा िनरं तर मांग क गयी है! दूकान म आग लगने से हमारा अिधक आ थक नुकसान आ है! िजसका शाखा ारा िन र ण "कया गया है! बार बार आ ह "कये जाने पर मांगे गए अि म भरे गए बीिमत कागजात अभी तक नह% िभजवाए जाने और बार बार हम गुमराह "कये जाने क आर. टी. आई. तहत सूचना दी जाये!"

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 08.01.2020 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Page 1 of 5 Information Officer (CPIO), Syndicate Bank (now Canara Bank), Meerut, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 05.02.2020 replied to the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 14.02.2020. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 16.03.2020 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed second appeal dated 29.05.2020 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 29.05.2020 inter alia on the grounds that reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide complete information and take necessary action as per Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act.

4. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 05.02.2020 and the same is reproduced as under:-

आपके ारा अपने आवेदन म &प' (प से कोई भी जानकारी नह% मांगी गयी है, हालां"क उ मामले म शाखा ारा +ा, ट.पणी के आधार पर हम आपको िन0 जानकारी +दान करते ह2:

"अि म भरे गए दूकान और यहाँ पर रखे &टॉक स बंिधत कागजात िभजवाने के स ब ध म पुनः सूिचत करना है "क आरं िभक इ शुरे स पािलसी &टॉक हेतई ु - 359 शा7ी नगर के पते पर करायी गयी थी िजसे बाद म ऋणी ारा &टॉक का नया पता "दए जाने पर र यूअल के समय सूिचत "कया गया पताबी - 32, गंगावा टका, गंगा नगर बदला गया! िस;यू रटी म रखी गयी िब<=डग दूकान जो ?ीमती बीना छाबरा के नाम है आर भ से ही िब<=डग का बीमा कराया गया था िजसे हर वष नवीनीकरण कराया गया!"

The FAA vide order dated 16.03.2020 upheld the CPIO's reply.

Hearing on 01.07.2022:

4.1. The Appellant's father Shri A.K.Chhabra and on behalf of the respondent Shri Rajesh Kumar Agarwal, CPIO, CanaraBank (erstwhile Syndicate Bank), Meerut attended the hearing through video conference.

4.2. The Commission passed the following directions on 25.07.2022:

"6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that the appellant sought Page 2 of 5 documents relating to the insurance done by the respective branch on his shop as well as the stock kept in the shop. However, the same was not provided by the respondent till the date of hearing. The respondent during the course of hearing submitted that the appellant had not sought any specific documents. The arguments made by the respondent were not sustainable. The information sought was not provided to the appellant even after a lapse of over 2 years and even after the notice from the Commission. The conduct of the respondent was viewed seriously. In view of the above, Shri Ramakant Sharma, the then CPIO and Shri Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal, the present CPIO are show caused as to why action under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act may not be initiated against each of them for not providing the information to the appellant. The present CPIO is given responsibility to serve a copy of this order as well as show cause notice to the then CPIO and secure his attendance on the next date of hearing and submit their written explanations. All the written explanations (from both the CPIOs) must reach the Commission within four weeks. Meanwhile, the respondent is directed to provide complete information to the appellant within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order."

Hearing on 29.09.2022

5. The appellant's father Shri A.K.Chhabra and on behalf of the respondent Shri Ramakant Sharma, Dy. General Manager, Canara Bank, Kormangla and Shri Shailesh Kumar, CPIO, Canara Bank, Meerut attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The representative of the appellant inter alia submitted that there was a fire accident in the appellant's shop due to which he suffered financial loss of around 7 lakhs. He stated that the concerned branch was informed about the said fire accident. However, insurance claim was not given to the appellant. Therefore, the appellant sought copies of the insurance documents by which his shop as well as the stocks available in his shop were insured by the bank. He stated the respondent had provided unsigned proforma of insurance copies. Therefore, they had not completely complied with the Commission's directions.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the insurance availed by the appellant covered his shop as well as stocks. Further, they had provided the renewal policy as well as the proforma that covered insurance for stocks. They further stated Page 3 of 5 that the forms were provided in their original form and they presumed that additional signatures or stamps might have tampered the proforma. However, they ensured to provide attested copies to the appellant again. They had submitted their written explanations vide letter dated 25.08.2022 and explained that they could not furnish the information earlier, as the RTI application was not specific and it was not clear as to what documents were sought by the appellant. They tendered apologies to the Commission for the delay caused in the matter and reiterated that they had complied with the directions of the Commission and provided the copies of insurance policies to the appellant.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that the respondent had provided copies of insurance policies to the appellant, in compliance of the Commission's order dated 25.07.2022. However, the appellant claimed that the proformae were unsigned. In view of the above, the respondent is directed that the certified and signed copies of insurance policies/proformae be made available to the appellant within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Further, the written explanations submitted by the CPIOs were found reasonable and reasons cited by them for not providing the information were genuine, since the appellant had not specifically mentioned the list of documents required. That being so, and in absence of any mala fide on the part of the CPIOs, the show cause notices issued to Shri Ramakant Sharma, the then CPIO and Shri Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal, the present CPIO, are hereby dropped. With these observations, the appeal is disposed of.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुसुरेशचं ा) ा सूचनाआयु ) Information Commissioner (सू दनांक/Date: 10.10.2022 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराममूत#) Dy. Registrar (उपपंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Page 4 of 5 Addresses of the parties:

THE CPIO:

REGIONAL MANAGER CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK) BHAVANI PURAM UNIVERSITY ROAD MEERUT-250004 (UP) THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY ZONAL MANAGER CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK) ZONAL OFFICE, 24 MAHATAMA GANDHI MARG, HAZRATGANJ, LUCKNOW-226001 SH. NITIN CHHABRA Page 5 of 5

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission