Subra Sekhar Nath vs Canara Bank on 23 June, 2023

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Subra Sekhar Nath vs Canara Bank on 23 June, 2023

1. The issue under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 07.12.2021 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 23.08.2021 and first appeal dated 26.09.2021:-

 The RTI is filed with respect to complain raised to Canara Bank via email dated 21- July-2021 related to Car loan A/c no. **********067 (Thakurpukur Branch, Kolkata, West Bengal) regarding poor CIBIL report due to wrongly updated multiple delayed payment reports from Canara Bank.

(i) Is Canara Bank following citizen's charter?

Page 1 of 5

(ii) What appropriate steps/actions taken to correct the multiple delayed payments reports wrongly updated by Canara Bank to CIBIL site related to Car loan A/c no. *********0067. Provide documents.

(iii) What steps are taken/response given by Canara Bank to CIBIL for correction of CIBIL report related to wrongly updated multiple delayed payment report (of Car loan A/c no. *********0067) after CIBIL authorities ask Canara Bank to clarify the issue vide CIBIL Dispute ID CDS***********734, dated 04-08-

2021. The same was forwarded to Canara bank by him on date 12-Aug-2021 via email. Provide documents.

(iv) If the response to point no. (ii) is NO, than why correction is not done?

(v) Who is responsible for wrongly uploading multiple delayed loan payment reports to CIBIL website even after regular on time payment of EMI and also not taken appropriate steps to correct the data even after repeated requests?

(vi) What is the compensation amount stipulated or you are providing against the mental trauma and financial loss. The appellant had due to abrupt fall in CIBIL score and poor CIBIL report.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 23.08.2021 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Canara Bank, Kolkata, West Bengal, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 23.09.2021 replied to the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 26.09.2021. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) did not pass any order. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed second appeal dated 07.12.2021 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 07.12.2021 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.

Page 2 of 5

4. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 23.09.2021 and the same is reproduced as under:-

     (i)       "Yes
     (ii)      To (vi) You are kindly informed that CIBIL is an private credit information

company and updation of any records are under its jurisdiction."

The FAA did not pass any order.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Ms. Babita Laishram, Manager (Law), Canara Bank, Kolkata attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that he had sent complaint to Canara Bank via email dated 21.07.2021 regarding Car loan A/c no. **********067 (Thakurpukur Branch, Kolkata, West Bengal) for poor CIBIL report due to multiple delayed payment reported wrongly by the respondent bank. He further submitted that as per the reply, he had approached the CIBIL which had informed that correction would be done from the credit institution i.e. respondent bank. He stated that since then he had been approaching the banks and also filed the instant RTI application but the respondent had not provided complete information till the date of hearing.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had replied to the RTI application vide letter dated 23.09.2021. They further submitted that information sought was in the nature of queries which did not fall within the purview of information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that reply given by the respondent was incomplete and evasive. The appellant submitted that the bank had reported incorrect information of his delayed payment to CIBIL department due to which his credit score was poor. The appellant had also filed a complaint to the bank on 21.07.2021 for correct updation of his financial status to the CIBIL but still his issue was not resolved. The respondent had asked the appellant to approach CIBIL. The appellant stated that he had approached the CIBIL which had requested to approach the credit institutions (bank). It may be noted that more than one and half years had elapsed and the information was not Page 3 of 5 provided by the respondent. It was not the case that the respondent had refuted the appellant's claim that the bank had reported incorrect information regarding delayed payment to CIBIL. The respondent was shifting their liabilities to the CIBIL and even the matter came before the Commission they did not try to rectify their mistakes or provide the information to the appellant. In view of the above, Shri Pradeep Kumar Ba, the then CPIO and Shri Pawan Kumar Pandey, the present CPIO are show caused as to why penalty under section 20 (1) of the RTI Act may not be imposed upon each of them. 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.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 26.06.2023 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

THE CPIO:

CANARA BANK 3RD FLOOR, BELLS HOUSE, 21 CAMAC STREET, KOLKATA, WB - 700016 (PRESENT CPIO IS REQUESTED TO SERVE THE COPY OF THE ORDER TO SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR BA, THE THEN CPIO AND SHRI Pawan Kumar Pandey, present CPIO AND SECURE WRITTEN EXPLANATIONS) Page 4 of 5 THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY CANARA BANK 3RD FLOOR, BELLS HOUSE, 21 CAMAC STREET, KOLKATA, WB - 700016 SHRI Pawan Kumar Pandey, present CPIO CANARA BANK 3RD FLOOR, BELLS HOUSE, 21 CAMAC STREET, KOLKATA, WB - 700016 THE CPIO (FOR SERVING TO PRADEEP KUMAR BA, THE THEN CPIO AS ON 23.8.2021) CANARA BANK 3RD FLOOR, BELLS HOUSE, 21 CAMAC STREET, KOLKATA, WB - 700016 SHRI SUBRA SEKHAR NATH Page 5 of 5

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission