Sp Chockalingam vs Indian Overseas Bank on 25 April, 2023

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Sp Chockalingam vs Indian Overseas Bank on 25 April, 2023

1. The issue under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 11.06.2021 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 19.03.2021 and first appeal dated 23.04.2021:-

Subject matter: Appellant borrowed a HP loan against his vehicle Renault KWID a sum of Rs. 4,10,000/- through account no. *******0028 dated 30.11.2017 and settled it with interest before its due on 30.11.2020. He almost cleared all the dues of principal and interest leaving Rs 3/- payable as on 31.10.2019. Thereafter he have paid a sum of Rs.200/- to appropriate the balance sum of Rs.3/- and the balance to remain in his HP account on 11.02.2O21 he sent a letter to The Manager, Indian Overseas Bank- Main Branch, Sekkalai Road, Karaikudi-630001 requesting him to send the NOC to cancel the endorsement in his R.C Book by return of post but Page 1 of 4 received no reply from him. Again he sent a reminder on 01.03:021 but still received no reply. In this connection he sought the following U/5 6{1}of RTI Act 2005

(i) RTI copy of the Statement of Account No. ******0028 of his vehicle loan from 30.11.2017 till date.

(ii) Confirm the receipt of his letter dated 11.02.2021 and 01.03.2021 as cited above.

(iii) Present status of action taken to discharge him from his liability of HP loan account no. ********0028.

     (iv)      State specific reason for delay in replying to his
     (v)        letters dated 11.02.2021 and 01.03.2021.
     (vi)      RTI copies of the proceedings taken in the above matter.
     (vii)     RTI copy of marginal notes recorded in his letters dated 11.02.2021 and
               01.03.2021 in as and where condition.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 19.03.2021 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Indian Overseas Bank, Karaikudi, Tamilnadu, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 02.06.2021 replied to the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 23.04.2021. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) did not pass any order. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed second appeal dated 11.06.2021 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 11.06.2021 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 the complete information and take necessary action as per Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act.

4. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 02.06.2021 and the same is reproduced as under:-

"Information sought contains information of customer of bank which are available to public authority (i.e. bank) under fiduciary relationship ( i.e. bank and customer). The disclosure of this information to a third party is exempted under section 8 (1) (e ) of the RTI Act, 2005.

Page 2 of 4

The Honourable CIC in Second Appeal No. CIC/IOVBK/a/2017/609541 dated 08.07.2019 in the matter between Bishwa Ranjan Parui vs CPIO, Indian Overseas Bank up held the decision of CPIO of denying the information related to customer of Bank to third party under section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act, 2005."

5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Shri S V V Shankar, Assistant General Manager and CAPIO, Indian Overseas Bank, Sivaganga, attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the loan account mentioned in the RTI application was not in the name of the appellant. As per their records, the loan was availed by his son and the information of their customer was held by them in fiduciary capacity. Therefore, in absence of any authorization letter from his son, the information was denied under the provisions of section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observed that due reply was given by the CPIO on 2.06.2021. Further, in the absence of the appellant and any written objections, the averments made by the respondent were taken on records. That being so, there appears to be no public interest in further prolonging the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुसुरेशचं ा) ा सूचनाआयु ) Information Commissioner (सू दनांक/Date: 24.04.2023 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराममूत ) Dy. Registrar (उपपंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Page 3 of 4 Addresses of the parties:

The CPIO Indian Overseas Bank 661/1, 4th Street - South, Subramaniya Puram, karaikudi, Tamilnadu-630002 First Appellate Authority Indian Overseas Bank P.B. 763, Indian Overseas Bank, IIIrd Floor, Annex Building, Anna Salai, Chennai Tamilnadu-600002 Shri S P Choekalingam Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission