Dinesh Singh vs Rural / Gramin Banks on 6 March, 2023

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Dinesh Singh vs Rural / Gramin Banks on 6 March, 2023

1. The issue under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 26.05.2021 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 03.03.2021 and first appeal dated 03.04.2021:-

(i) Account opening form through which the account No. ************70 was made active jointly provide attachment along with documents.

(ii) Nominee details in account.

(iii) Whether it is beneficial for the joint consent of both the account holders to register a nominee in a joint account.

(iv) Provide directions copy of bank according to what is the right of the nominee on the death of the account holder of the account in which the nominee is registered.

Page 1 of 5

(v) Can the second account holder disconnect his name from the account after the death of the first holder in the joint account?

(vi) Whether the entries shown in the passbook and safe entries in bank has the same.

(vii) Whether operational instructions are written in the passbook of the account holder provide the certified.

(viii) Does the circulation of the joint account differ from the account holder passbook?

(ix) While surviving the first applicant in the joint account the bank manager has been given a letter of request that the second applicant will operate this account bus one reason the bank manager is unable to take action on them and he transferred In that case can current bank manager have right to take cognizance on the matter.

(x) If first applicant does not have Aadhar card, PAN card in joint account them bank will provide money.

(xi) Is there any right to bank manager to provide money if the account holder is fighting between life and death and wants to withdraw the money deposited in the account of aviator treatment but is unable to provide the documents sought in KYC?

(xii) If the account holder changes his account to a joint account makes the already existing nominee the second account holder that what is the right of account holder.

(xiii) Whether the information already exists after the account changes becomes invalid or is deleted what is work of that.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 08.12.2020 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Baroda UP Bank, Fatehpur, UP. The CPIO vide letter dated 16.03.2021 replied to the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 03.04.2021. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated Page 2 of 5 27.04.2021 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed second appeal dated 26.05.2021 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 26.05.2021inter alia on the grounds that reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory. The appellant requested the Commission to 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 16.03.2021 and the same is reproduced as under:-

(i)     "Account opening form is enclosed.

(ii)    Nominee details: Bina Devi.

(iii) Consent of account holders are must and inevitable as the nomination form is forming the part of account opening form.

(iv) The right of nominee is described in section 45ZA as per Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and is "where a deposit is held by a banking company to the credit of one or more persons, the depositor or, as the case may be, all the depositor together, may nominate, in the prescribed manner, one person to whom in the event of the death of the sole depositor or the death of all the depositors, the amount of deposit may be returned by the banking company". For more details kindly refer to section 45ZA as per Banking Regulations Act, 1949.

(v)     No.

(vi)    Bank has a single and unitary source for maintaining its records. Hence, all

entries on passbook are from the some records that bank possess.

(vii) Yes, operational instructions are specified in the passbook. Certified documents cannot be provided as Bank provides such details to the customer only at the time of issue of passbook to the customer.

Page 3 of 5

(viii) No but if the mode of operation of account has been changed by the customer and the passbook held by the customer is of previous period then there is a possibility of difference.

(ix) It is to inform you that Branch is a unit of Bank and Bank is `Company' establish under the law having perpetual succession. Therefore, when a customer or any person communicate with bank then bank responds or communicate through its representative like Branch Manager. It doesn't matter that who is Bank Manager.

(x) It is the duty and right of the Branch Manager to satisfy himself regarding KYC of the customer as per norm before any transactions.

(xi) It is the duty and right of the Branch Manager to verify and satisfy itself regarding KYC of the customer before initiate any transaction.

(xii) Right of account holder will depends and vary upon the instructions regarding mode of operation.

(xiii) The latest instructions will prevail over the old instructions."

The FAA vide order dated 27.04.2021 agreed with the reply by the CPIO.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri K S Bhaskar, Chief Manager, Baroda U.P. Bank, Fatehpur, attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that he was not satisfied with the reply given by the respondent as complete information was not provided. He further submitted that against point no.1, the account opening form was not provided till the date of hearing.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had provided point-wise information to the appellant vide letter dated 16.03.2021. They further submitted that since the appellant claimed that he had not received the account opening form, he was ready to provide copy of the account opening form once again to the appellant.

Page 4 of 5

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that the appellant sought information regarding his account. The respondent had provided point-wise information/reply to the appellant vide letter dated 16.03.2021. The appellant during the course of hearing claimed that account opening form sought on point no. 1 of the RTI application was not provided by the respondent. The respondent expressed their preparedness to provide the information i.e. account opening form, once again to the appellant. In view of the above, the respondent is directed to provide copy of account opening form to the appellant, within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The Commission is of the view that due reply was given by the respondent on the remaining points. With the above observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुसुरेशचं ा) ा सूचनाआयु ) Information Commissioner (सू दनांक/Date: 03.03.2023 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराममूत ) Dy. Registrar (उपपंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

The CPIO Baroda UP Bank 2 A, Gautam Nagar, ITI Road, Fatehpur, UP-212601 First Appellate Authority Baroda Up Bank Buddh Vihar Commercial Scheme, New Shivpuri Colony,Taramandal, Gorakhpur-273016 Shri Dinesh Singh Page 5 of 5

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission