Central Information Commission
Mr.Parmod Gupta vs United Commercial Bank (Uco) on 17 January, 2012
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/003241/16905
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/003241
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Pramod Gupta
R/o: 252/42, Rakab Ganj,
Loha Bazar, Lucknow - 226003.
Respondent : Mr. A. A. Allaqband
Public Information Officer & AGM UCO Bank O/o the Assistant General Manager, Zonal Office: 28, Naval Kishore Road, Sky Lark Building, IIIrd Floor, Hazzaratganj, Lucknow - 226001.
RTI application filed on : 22/04/2011 PIO replied : 27/05/2011 First appeal filed on : 04/06/2011 First Appellate Authority order : 19/08/2011 Second Appeal received on : 10/11/2011 Information Sought:
1. That since the above referred cheques belong to an account of a corporate sector & the actual favourable person of the cheques also does reside in Lucknow City therefore, whether the transactions of the above referred cheques are covered under clause 2.4 (a) & (f) of the Manual of Instruction of UCO Bank. Vol-4, Deposit Part III or not. If not then inform us, the specific reasons of the same in detail.
2. That since the overdraft facility allowed by the bank in the account of the applicant company i.e. a corporate sector's account but without any formal request of the applicant's company & which of course is covered under manual of instructions of UCO Bank chapter-6 Clause-7.1. Kindly let us inform in a very specific manner that under whom's instruction & or request the over-draft facility in the aforesaid account was allowed by the UCO Bank.
3. That since no identification of the recipient of the amount of the above referred questioned cheques were obtained by the officials of the concerned branch of the UCO Bank wherefore the only option is left for the UCO Bank to take the Opinion of Authorized Handwriting Expert of the UCO Bank for formal identity of the recipient of the amount of the questioned cheques and which was also formally requested by the applicant company. Kindly let us inform that why the same has been declined by the UCO Bank. Please specify the reasons of the same in detail.
Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO):
1. The Branch informed that you issued seven uncrossed bearer cheques. 793592-98 in the name of Pramod Kumar Gupta or bearer. You mentioned in your letter that favourable person was not in the city. It may be clarified that you have not disputed your signature on the cheques. Branch informed that as the signature of the issuer were correct and constitute proper mandate and Branch rightfully followed the mandate and made payment to the bearer of cheques, it was not expected from the branch to establish the residency of the beneficiary.Page 1 of 2
2. Branch informed that regarding para no. 2 no overdraft was allowed for payment of the cheques in contention. Statement for the period 31.03.2002 to 17.07.2002 is enclosed. It is also worthwhile to mention here that period during which all seven cheques were encashed is spread in more than a quarter hence without complaint from customer in such a long period there was no reason before the branch to doubt veracity of bearer.
3. As regards the identification of recipient of payment, according to N.I. Act and our manual of deposit in case for bearer cheque, it is not necessary for the bank to verify whether the presenter of the cheque is true owner of the cheque. The identity of the bearer could not be insisted as condition for payment.
Secondly, Bearer Cheque can be transferred by "delivery" only and verification of endorsement is not required for its honour.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Not Enclosed.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
"Again not being satisfied with the order and disposal of your appeal by 1st Appellate Authority, vide Khemkal/2011-12/150/144 dated 02.07.2011, you have requested Appellate Authority at Head Office to re-examine your appeal dated 04.06.2011 and direct the concerned CPIO at Zonal Office Lucknow to provide information in a manner."
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory Information was provided.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. Pramod Gupta on video conference from NIC-Lucknow Studio; Respondent: Mr. A. A. Allaqband, Public Information Officer & AGM on video conference from NIC-
Lucknow Studio;
The information available on the records has been provided to the appellant. The Appellant believes that the bank has not acted as per law in allowing encashment of certain bearer's cheques. The Commission has no jurisdiction over this and the Appellant is advised to approach an appropriate forum for this.
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 17 January 2012 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(PRE) Page 2 of 2