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 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Sorabh Sethi vs Idbi Bank Ltd. on 27 September, 2019

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/IDBIB/A/2018/609144/IDBIL

Sorabh Sethi                                                       ... अपीलकता /Appellant

                                           VERSUS
                                            बनाम


CPIO: IDBI Bank Ltd,
WTC Complex, Cuffe
Parade, Mumbai.                                                 ... ितवादीगण/Respondents

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

RTI : 07.08.2017                  FA       : 09.10.2017           SA     : Dated Nil

CPIO : 07.09.2017                 FAO : 06.11.2017                Hearing : 25.09.2019


                                          ORDER

(27.09.2019)

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated Nil include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 07.08.2017 and first appeal dated 09.10.2017:-

(i) How many complaints received by CGRO/ IDBI bank as tier III online through IDBI Bank online portal (https://www.idbi.com/banking-complaints-

iii.asp) in last 2 years.

Page 1 of 5

(ii) Please provide the information that through which means above complaints was received by CGRO.

(iii) Whether the status of above complaints is available online on IDBI Bank online portal.

(iv) Through which means the resolution of above complaints was intimated to the complainant.

(v) Whether mentioning of email id of Tier III officer on IDBI Bank online portal (https://www.idbi.com/banking-complaints-iii.asp) is compulsory as per the regulations of Government authorities (like RBI).

(vi) Above information relates with my complaint made at IDBI Bank online portal. Therefore it is a kind request you to please provide in details following information about my complaint via reference no WEB/1494821762 registered on IDBI Bank online portal:

a.) Date of registration of complaint. b.) What reply, resolution, query made and received by the TIER I officer with dates.
c.) What reply, resolution, query made and received by the TIER II officer with dates.
d.) What reply, resolution, query made and received by the TIER III officer with dates.
e.) Whether all the RBI guidelines are followed in handling of the above complaint.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 07.08.2017 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), IDBI Bank Ltd, WTC Complex, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO replied on 07.09.2017. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal dated 09.10.2017. The First Appellate Authority disposed of the first appeal vide order dated 06.11.2017.

Page 2 of 5

Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed a second appeal dated nil before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant filed the instant appeal dated nil inter alia on the grounds that both CPIO as well as FAA provided false information.

4. The CPIO replied on 07.09.2017 and gave point-wise information.

5. The appellant and Mr. Kaushik , CPIO, IDBI Bank Ltd., Mumbai (respondent) attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The appellant submitted that the grievance redressal system was poorly maintained by the respondent. He further submitted that there was a three-tier system for grievance redressal and though he had followed the procedure, the respondent had not redressed his complaint. He had filed a complaint for misbehavior by the respondent's staff and his complaint was pending at the tier-2 level. He had also filed a complaint before banking Lokpal but the same was rejected on the ground that he had not exhausted the option of tier-3 level. The email details of the competent grievance redressal authority were not available at their web portal. Therefore, he was unable to file tier-3 complaint. He alleged that due to technical glitches on their web portal, number of complaints received by the respondent were also minimal. He stated that he was not satisfied with the response given by the respondent on point no. 5 and 6 (b), (c) and (d) of his RTI application.

5.2. The respondent submitted that email ids of all complaint redressal authorities were available at their web portal. He further stated that the appellant had sought information regarding query, reply, resolution etc. concerning the third parties. The information being related to third parties, the complaints and resolutions of the respective complaints were held by them in fiduciary capacity. Therefore, the same was denied to the appellant under section 8 (1) (e) of RTI Act.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, feels that the appellant has raised several issues relating to technical glitches on the respondent's complaint redressal portal. It Page 3 of 5 may not be out of place to mention that the respondent being a public authority is under an obligation to provide assistance to its customers that may enable them to avail the facilities introduced by the bank. The respondent having introduced online complaint redressal system with multiple level must ensure its effective functioning. They cannot take plea of technical glitches over a period of one year as claimed by the appellant which prevented him from filing complaint before tier 3 officer. The contact details along with email ids of all officers responsible for disposal of complaints must be updated on their web portal as per the mandate contained under the provisions of section 4 (1) of the RTI Act. Moreover, the complaint referred to by the appellant having been filed by him, he is entitled to receive the information relating to its disposal/ resolution. In view of this, the Commission feels that the information sought in that regard is his complaint and not relating to third party. Therefore, the respondent is directed that the RTI application be re-visited and information on point no. 6 (a), (b) and (c) of the RTI application be provided to the appellant within two weeks from date of receipt of this order. With the aforementioned observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 27.09.2019 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:

THE CPIO, IDBI BANK LTD.
IDBI TOWER, WTC COMPLEX, CUFFE PARADE, MUMBAI - 400 005 THE F.A.A., IDBI BANK LTD, IDBI TOWER, WTC COMPLEX, CUFFE PARADE, MUMBAI - 400 005 SORABH SETHI, Page 5 of 5