Central Information Commission
Dinanath Sah vs State Bank Of India on 16 March, 2022
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
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/SBIND/A/2020/671604
Mr. Dinanath Sah ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO ... ितवादी/Respondent
State Bank of India
RBO-4, Sasaram, Rohtas
Bihar-821115
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:-
RTI : 16-09-2019 FA : 24-02-2020 SA : 27-05-2020
CPIO : 09-10-2019 FAO : Not on Record Hearing : 11-03-2022
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) State Bank of India, Rohtas, Bihar. The appellant seeking information is as under:-
1. CCTV footage of the ATM (SBI) of jairam complex, bikramganj for the period during 15 minutes before and after of the transaction of my account/ATM (1755-1855hrs) initiated on 12 SEP 19.
2. CCTV footage of the ATM from where my said account was transacted (through ATM) for the period during 15 minutes before and after the transaction of my account through ATM on 13 SEP
19.
3. Policy on lodging complaint by the branch manager in case of report of fraudulent transaction by the account holder/bonafide customer.
4. Details of the repair/maintenance work carried out of the ATM machine of Jairam complex, bikramganj, sasaram Bihar in last one year.Page 1 of 3
5. Action initiated on my complaint lodged on 15 SEP 19 against fraudulent transaction from my said account via ATM on 12&13 SEP 19.
6. Details such as name, employee number, appointment, contact number and address of the guard deployed at the ATM from where m account was fraudulently transact on 12 and 13 SEP 19
2. The CPIO vide letter dated 09-10-2019 has given point-wise reply to the appellant. Being dissatisfied with the same, the appellant has file first appeal dated 24-02-2020 and requested that the information should be provided to him. The order of the FAA, if any, is not on record with the Commission. He has filed a second appeal before the Commission on the ground that information sought has not been provided to him and requested to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information.
Hearing:
3. The appellant remained absent during the hearing. Upon being communicated by the Commission on the given mobile number, Mr. Santosh Sah (son of the appellant) informed the Commission that he do not remember the content of the RTI application. However submitted that their ATM card had been misused and no fruitful result was given by the respondent and pleaded that the matter be decided based upon the records available with the Commission on merits. The respondent, Shri Abhishek Kumar Sinha, AGM/ CPIO attended the hearing through audio-call.
4. The respondent submitted their written submissions and the same has been taken on record.
5. The respondent while reiterating the replies of the CPIO/ FAA submitted that vide their letter dated 09.10.2019, they have furnished a point wise reply to the appellant. He further submitted that the ATM in question was a PLA ATM, which has an inbuilt CCTV in it which takes still photographs at very short intervals. He further submitted that these still photographs had already been furnished to the appellant, the receipt of which has also been acknowledged by the appellant in his second appeal. Further there is no provision to capture CCTV footage other than that of inbuilt still photographs and hence they do not maintain any information other than that as furnished to the appellant.
Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondent and after perusal of records, observes that the appellant has sought the CCTV footage of an ATM machine (as mentioned in the RTI application) and issues Page 2 of 3 related thereto. The Commission further observes that the ATM machine in question was a PLA ATM, which has an inbuilt CCTV in it which takes still photographs at very short intervals and there is no provision of CCTC footage other than that. They further submitted that the still photographs had already been furnished to the appellant on 14.12.2019. However the respondent failed to inform the said factual information to the appellant initially on their reply or on their written submission as submitted before the Commission. Keeping in view the same, the Commission therefore directs the respondent to furnish a categorical revised point wise reply to the appellant reflecting their verbal submissions made before the Commission, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under the intimation to the Commission.
7. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
8. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरज कु मार गु ा)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज ा
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक / Date : 11-03-2022
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा ),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO
State Bank of India
RBO-4, Sasaram, Rohtas
Bihar-821115
2. Mr. Dinanath Sah
Page 3 of 3