Prakash Agrawal vs State Bank Of India on 29 January, 2021

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Prakash Agrawal vs State Bank Of India on 29 January, 2021

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 31.12.2018 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 12.08.2018 and first appeal dated 16.09.2018:-

(i) Objectives of SBI for adopting Auto Inbuilt CNP transactions (card Not Present Transactions Facility) features on all SBI debit cards.

(ii) Clarify the reasons of SBI behind issuance of all debit cards to the customers in an auto enabled state for all channels and domestic/international usage instead Page 1 of 4 of only ATM & POS/SWIPE without customer awareness status & specific demand for all such unwanted services.

(iii) Specify the name of different categories of transactions based on the channel of usage state bank debit card. Also specify the names of different channels.

(iv) Name of SBIs process management system contain specification of module (By Online/SMS/Phone to Customer Care Helpline/Branch visit, etc) by which any SBI Customer can Enable/Disable any of the Unwanted Services which Enabled on HIS/HER ATM/Debit card, channels (ATM/PoS/ecommerce) or usage i.e., Domestic/International through the following mode.

(v) Provide details of Phonic Helpline numbers issued by SBI for their customers especially for Blocking unwanted CNP services.

(vi) Provide copy of statistical data sheet (Financial Year wise) should contain Total number (no need of Customer details) of Cyber Frauds reported to SBI from 01.04.2010 to till date along with Total Amount reported for Such fraud (Claimed & Refunded Amount both in Rupees).

(vii) Provide copy of statistical Data Sheet (State wise) contain total number of SBI Bank customers, also requested to provide total number of illiterate customers associated with SBI.

(viii) Please enumerate & specify maximum time & mode by which SBI officials Accept Refund Request from cyber fraud victims. Also requested to clarify the necessity of Police FIR before initiating Victims refund request (Because SBI officials & Phone Banking Executives Demanded for same & shown helplessness without FIF Copy).

(ix) Kindly provide copy of action taken report by SBI officials towards my email dtd 06.08.2018 at 3.11 PM (copy of email enclosed).

Page 2 of 4

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 12.08.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 04.10.2018 replied to the appellant. Dissatisfied with this, the appellant filed first appeal dated 16.09.2018. The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 01.10.2018 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 31.12.2018 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 31.12.2018 inter alia on the grounds that that the CPIO and the FAA did not seem serious based on the reply given on issues of public interest. 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 04.10.2018 and provided the details of cyber frauds, amounts financial year-wise, etc. The FAA concurred with the views taken by the CPIO.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Sujay Kumar Yadav, Deputy General Manager(Debit Card), State Bank of India, Bandra, attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that the reply given by the respondent was incomplete and misleading. The appellant further submitted that he had not information as a tool through RTI mechanism; however, he had an objective behind filing of each RTI application. Further, the reply given in respect of point nos 1 to 7 of the RTI application was not given on any letter had and did not contain any signatures.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that point-wise reply was given to the appellant and the reply to point nos 1 to 7 of the RTI application was enclosed along with their reply. However, the appellant having insisted upon the Page 3 of 4 certified copy of the reply they assured to re-send the reply again to the appellant on their letter head.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observes that observes that reply was given vide CPIO's letter dated 04.10.2018 and Annexure B of respondent's written submissions dated 15.01.2021. However, the appellant has insisted upon the certified copy of the reply. In view of this, the respondent is directed to provide certified copy of reply dated 15.01.2021 (including all annexures) and appropriate reply in respect of point no. 8 of the RTI application to the appellant within one week from date of receipt of this order. With these observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of.

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

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 28.01.2021 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 Corporate Center, 9th Floor, State Bank Bhavan, Madame Cama Road, Mumbai - 400 021 THE F.A.A, GENERAL MANAGER (PAYMENTS & SPECIAL PROJECTS), CORPORATE CENTRE, S.B.I. BHAWAN, MADAME CAMA ROAD, MUMBAI - 400 021 Prakash Agrawal Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission