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 1, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Kush vs Reserve Bank Of India on 10 July, 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
                                        .

िशकायत सं या / Complaint No. CIC/RBIND/C/2017/177779

Kush                                                      ...िशकायतकता/Complainant

                                       VERSUS
                                        बनाम

CPIO-I: Reserve Bank of India,
6 Sansad Marg, New Delhi-01.

CPIO-II: Reserve Bank of
India,Bhagat Singh Marg, Mumbai.                          ... ितवादीगण /Respondents

Relevant dates emerging from the complaint:

RTI : 30.06.2017              FA      : No Appeal          Complaint : 17.11.2017

CPIO : No Reply               FAO : No Order               Hearing     : 27.06.2019

                                      ORDER

(09.07.2019)

1. The issues under consideration i.e. the reliefs sought by the complainant in his complaint dated 17.11.2017 due to alleged non-supply of information vide his RTI application dated 30.06.2017 are as under :

 Provide the requisite information

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the complainant filed an application dated 30.06.2017 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Reserve Bank of India, 6 Sansad Marg, New Delhi seeking following information:

Page 1 of 4

(i) How many locker theft/burglary/loss of articles disputes cases have approached the Banking Ombudsman in last 10 years. Kindly provide state wise data.
(ii) How much compensation till date has been awarded by banking ombudsman to people who have approached Banking ombudsman for loss of articles in lockers. Kindly provide state wise data of 10 years.
(iii) Kindly provide the policy to award compensation in cases of loss of articles in lockers. Kindly provide state wise data.
(iv) Can compensation be awarded to person for loss of articles in lockers by banking ombudsman.
(v) Kindly provide details of 10 years of monetary compensation awarded by banking ombudsman to people for loss of articles in lockers.
(vi) Are banking lockers theft cases or loss of items in lockers dealt by banking ombudsman. Kindly provide state wise data.
(vii) How many cases of bank locker thefts or loss of items are pending with Banking ombudsman in last 10 years in India. Kindly provide state wise details.
(viii) How many cases of bank locker thefts or loss of items are disposed of with Banking ombudsman in last 10 years in India. Kindly provide state wise details.

The CPIO did not reply. Aggrieved by this, the complainant has filed a complaint dated 17.11.2017 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The complainant filed the instant complaint dated 17.11.2017 inter alia on the grounds that no reply was given by the CPIO.

4. As presented by the complainant, the CPIO did not give any reply.

5. The complainant remained absent and the respondent represented by S/Shri Madhav N Kale, Assistant Law Advisor and Anil Kumar, Assistant General Manager, Reserve Bank of India attended the hearing through Video Conference. Page 2 of 4 5.2. The respondent submitted that they gave a reply dated 10.08.2017 and stated that the complainant had not enclosed the copy of the reply sent to him. They stated that the complainant had sought state-wise losses of articles from lockers arising out of incidents of theft, burglary, etc. and details of compensation amounts granted in each case. They did not maintain such voluminous records and collection of the data from each stated would result in exhausting of large human power and public resources. They had informed the complainant that loss of articles was not covered as grounds for complaint under the Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 2006.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, feels that the response given by the respondent vide letter dated 10.08.2017 and additional submissions made during the hearing are reasonable. There is no public interest in prolonging the matter further. Accordingly, the complaint is rejected.

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

Sd/-

                                                      (Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ा)
                                         Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु         )
                                                        दनांक/Date: 09.07.2019

Authenticated true copy
R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत )
Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७)
Addresses of the parties:




                                                                           Page 3 of 4
 CPIO :
1.RESERVE BANK OF INDIA
6 Sansad Marg New Delhi -110001

2. THE C.P.I.O
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA RIA
Division, Central Office
Building, 21st Floor,
Shahid Bhagat Singh Marg,
Mumbai -400 001

FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY RESERVE
BANK OF INDIA
6, Sansad Marg New Delhi - 110001

KUSH




                                    Page 4 of 4