Yogesh Kumar vs State Bank Of India on 6 January, 2021

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Yogesh Kumar vs State Bank Of India on 6 January, 2021

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 27.09.2018 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 09.01.2018 and first appeal dated 01.05.2018:-

(i) Certified copy of personal accidental insurance(PAI) policy of Rs. 2 lacs in the name of Yogesh Kumar (appellant), which was signed by him as per the terms & conditions of the policy for deduction of Rs. 100/- from his saving account XXXXXXXXXX36.

Page 1 of 5

(ii) Certified copy of Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojana(PMSBY) in the name of Yogesh Kumar, which was signed by him in terms & conditions of the policy for deduction of Rs. 100/- from his saving account XXXXXXXXXX36.

(iii) How many personal accidental insurance policy for the academic year 2013-

14,2014-15,2015-16,2016-17 & 01-04-2017 to 09-01-2018 by Sadar Bazar Branch(0596)? Please provide the year wise detail.

(iv) Provide the Name, Designation of the officer/official of SadarBazar Branch(0596), who was competent to make the transaction of the personal accidental insurance.

(v) How many proposals were received in Sadar Bazar branch (0596) in the academic year 2013-14,2014-15,2015-16,2016-17 & 01-04-2017 to 09-01-2018 from the saving account holder? Please provide the year wise detail.

(vi) If the officers/officials are made the PAI transaction without approval / consent of the customer then what action would be taken against them as per SBI Rule & Regulation & Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority guidelines?

(vii) How many transactions for personal accidental insurance & PMSBY made in account of Yogesh Kumar 30644147336 from 01-04-2013 to 09-01-2018?

(viii) How many transactions for personal accidental insurance & PMSBY were reverted in the account of Yogesh Kumar 30644147336 from 01-04-2013 to 09- 01-2018.

(ix) Provide the name of the employees along with their tenure in Sadar Bazar Branch (0596) from 01-04-2013 to 09-01-2018.

(x) Certified copy of blank policy form of personal accidental insurance (PAI) policy of Rs. 2 lacs and Pradhan Mantri SurakshaBima Yojana(PMSBY).

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 09.01.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Regional Business Office-II, New Delhi, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 13.02.2018 and 27.03.2018 Page 2 of 5 replied to the appellant. Dissatisfied with this, the appellant filed first appeal dated 01.05.2018. The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 02.06.2018 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 27.09.2018 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 27.09.2018 inter alia on the grounds that reply given by the CPIO was incomplete and evasive. 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 vide letter dated 13.02.2018 gave point-wise reply/information to the appellant. The FAA vide order dated 02.06.2018 directed the CPIO to provide proper information against point nos. 1 and 3 of the RTI application, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this RTI application. In compliance of the FAA's order the CPIO provided revised information on point nos. 1 and 3 of the RTI application vide letter dated 21.06.2018.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Pankaj Chopra, Regional Manager and CPIO, State Bank of India, Delhi, attended the hearing through audio conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that proper reply/information was not provided by the respondent against point nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 & 6 of the RTI application. He stated that he sought information related to his account from which certain amount was deducted in the name of Personal Accidental Insurance (PCI) and Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojana (PMSBY). They further contended that both the aforesaid insurances were taken without his consent and no documents were provided by the bank in this regard even after asking for the same under the provisions of the RTI Act.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that hearing notice of the Commission was not received by them hence they could not attend the hearing in person. They further stated that they received a call from the office of the Commission and informed about the hearing therefore they were not able to present the case due to non- availability of respective files.

Page 3 of 5

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that reply given by the respondent was incomplete and evasive. Further, the respondent during the course of hearing submitted that hearing notice was not received by them. However, as per the record hearing notice dated 12.09.2020 was sent at the address of the CPIO, SBI, Regional Business office-1, Zonal Office, New Delhi which was forwarded by them to the concerned CPIO (RBO-1, Administrative office-1, New Delhi) vide letter dated 27.11.2020. Therefore, contention of the respondent that no hearing notice was received by their office is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Further, the respondent was not aware the facts and thus failed to assist the Commission properly in deciding the appeal. In view of this, the Commission directs the Registry of this Bench to issue show cause notice to Shri Pankaj Chopra, the present CPIO and Shri Manoj Kakkar, the then CPIO, State bank of India, Regional Business office-1, Administrative Office-1, 11 Parliament Street, New Delhi, to show cause as to why maximum penalty should not be imposed upon each of them as per section 20 (1) of RTI Act for not furnishing the complete information. The present CPIO is under obligation to service copy of this order on the then CPIO and secure his explanation. A copy of the written explanations from both the CPIOs (the present well as the then CPIO) must reach to the Commission within three weeks. The respondent is also directed that complete revised point-wise reply/ information be made available 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.

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 05.01.2021 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Page 4 of 5 Addresses of the parties:

CPIO:

State Bank of India Region-1, Administrative Office-1, 3rd Floor, 11 Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001 CPIO :

1. STATE BANK OF INDIA Regional Business Office 02 Delhi Administrative Office - 1, 4th Floor, DZO Building, 11, Parliament Street, New Delhi - 110 001 THE F.A.A, GENERAL MANAGER (NW-1), STATE BANK OF INDIA, 10TH FLOOR, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, 11, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI - 110 001 YOGESH KUMAR Page 5 of 5

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission