Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Karthi Natarajan vs Indian Bank on 2 December, 2022

Author: Suresh Chandra

Bench: Suresh Chandra

                                       के   ीय सूचना आयोग
                                Central Information Commission
                                   बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
                                 Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                                 नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/IBANK/A/2020/695341
Karthi Natarajan                                   ... अपीलकता/Appellant

                                        VERSUS
                                        बनाम
CPIO: Indian Bank
Chennai, Tamil Nadu                                        ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

RTI : 30.07.2020                  FA     : 23.09.2020          SA      : Nil

CPIO : 08.09.2020                 FAO : 28.10.2020             Hearing : 30.09.2022
                                             CORAM:
                                     Hon'ble Commissioner
                                  SHRI SURESH CHANDRA
                                            ORDER

(28.11.2022)

1. The issue under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated Nil include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 30.07.2020 and first appeal dated 23.09.2020:-

(i) What is the total amount of penalty and service charges deducted from customer's bank accounts in Indian Banks from the last 5 years (as on 30.07.2020) (Provide details related to each service separately)
(ii) What are the total accounts in Indian Banks? (as on 30.07.2020) (Provide each type of account details separately)
(iii) What is the amount of loans disbursed to customers in Indian Banks during the last 5 years (as on 30.07.2020)
(iv) For questions number (i) to (iii) provide information from March this year 2020 to the present (as on 30.07.2020) separately.
Page 1 of 5

(v) For question under (i) to (iv) provide information related to Sholinghur Indian Bank (Branch code ****22) separately.

(vi) What is the total amount of penalty deducted at Sholinghur Indian Bank from who those not having minimum balance in their account during the period April 2020 to June 2020.

(vii) Since the GOI has declared that customers should be fined if they do not have minimum balance for the period from April 2020 to June 2020, so how many people got refund for that from Sholinghur Indian Bank? How much was refunded?

(viii) What is the total number of employees currently working in Sholinghur Indian Bank? How many of them are permanent employees and how many are temporary employees? Provide their name and designation details.

(ix) What is the action taken on petitions number DEABD/E/2020/23232 and DEABD/E/2020/19776 registered in PG Portal which is related to Indian Bank? Give the photocopy of action taken on that grievance.

(x) How much amount has been lent to customers at Sholinghur Indian Bank in the last 5 years and how much repaid.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 30.07.2020 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Indian Bank, Chennai, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 08.09.2020 replied to the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 23.09.2020. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 28.10.2020 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed second appeal dated Nil before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated Nil inter alia on the grounds that reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory. The appellant requested the Commission to Page 2 of 5 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 08.09.2020 provided information on point nos. 1 and 2 of the RTI application. As regard to point nos. 3 to 8 of the RTI application, they while relying upon CIC order No. CIC/WB/A/2008/01256 dated 09.02.2010 replied that it was not open to the applicant under the RTI Act to bundle a series of requests into one application. The FAA vide order dated 28.10.2020 revisited the RTI application and provided revised point-wise information which was as under:-

     (i)       "CPIO has already provided reply
     (ii)      CPIO has already provided reply
     (iii)     Details of advance outstanding as of quarter ending is available in our website

www.indianbank.in Navigation->Investors-Financial results.

(iv) Information on line of query not maintained. However available information has been provided in reply to query (i) to (iii).

(v) 1. Penalty and service charges - No such information maintained at Sholinghur branch.

2. As on 30.07.2020 No. of deposit account - 2950 No. of loan account - 295

3. Loan amount disbursed to customer is Rs. 12.25 cr.

4. Loan account opened from March - July 2020 is 82 accounts. Amount is Rs. 3.00 cr.

(vi) No such information maintained at Sholinghur branch.

(vii) No such information maintained at Sholinghur branch.

(viii) Total number of staff working in Indian Bank Sholinghur as on 31.07.2020 are given below:

1. Moorthy Prasad Branch Manager
2. B Nagaraju Manager
3. J Somasundaram Asst. Branch Manager
4. Ramesh Kumar Kutty Asst. Manager Page 3 of 5
5. A Hari Clerk
6. N Ravi Clerk
7. Hemanathan J Clerk
8. Santhi Sub Staff No temporary employees at Sholinghur Branch
(ix) DEABD/E/2020/23232 replied on 22.05.2020. DEABAD/E/2020/19776 replied on 22.05.2020.

(x) Loan amount disbursed details already provided in query no. (v). Account wise repayment details not maintained at Sholinghur Branch."

5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Smt. Sreeja Rani, Chief Manager, Indian Bank, Chennai, attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had already provided point-wise information to the appellant vide letters dated 08.09.2020 and 28.10.2020.

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 respondent vide letters dated 08.09.2020 and 28.10.2020. Moreover, the appellant neither filed any written objection nor presented himself before the Commission to controvert the averments made by the respondent and further agitate the matter. Hence, the submissions of the respondent were taken on record. The Commission is of the view that there is 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/-

                                                                                        सुरेश चं ा)
                                                                     (Suresh Chandra) (सु        ा
                                                                                     सूचना आयु )
                                                          Information Commissioner (सू
                                                                           दनांक/Date: 28.11.2022
Authenticated true copy

R. Sitarama Murthy (      आर. सीताराम मूत )
                                                                                          Page 4 of 5
 Dy. Registrar (   उप पंजीयक)
011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७)


Addresses of the parties:
The CPIO
Indian Bank, 254 - 260,
Avvai Shamnumgam Salai,
Royapettah, Chennai - 600 014

First Appellate Authority
Indian Bank, 254 -260,
Avvai Shamnumgam Salai,
Royapettah, Chennai- 600 014

Shri Karthi Natarajan,




                                Page 5 of 5