Rohita vs State Bank Of India on 18 February, 2019

[Cites 2, Cited by 1]

Central Information Commission

Rohita vs State Bank Of India on 18 February, 2019

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 28.08.2017 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through her RTI application dated 10.06.2017 and first appeal dated 19.07.2017:

i. Provide a copy of letter/document that states that appellant's mother, Late Mrs.P. R. Bhatnagar has changed her mode of operation from signature to thumb impression for all her futuretransactions at the bank.

Page 1 of 7

ii. Provide copy of the document where her thumb impressions were recorded in the bankfor future reference.

iii. Provide name and details of the witnesses present, along with the details of the receipt of the letter and the bank official who received her request and authenticated her thumbimpressions.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.06.2017, under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the CPIO, State Bank of India, Uttarakhand Administrative Office, Dehradun seeking information on aforesaid points. The CPIOreplied on 10.07.2017 to the appellant.

Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed first appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) on 19.07.2017. The FAA disposed of first appeal vide order dated 14.08.2017.Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed second appeal dated 28.08.2017 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has sought aforementioned information inter alia on the grounds thatthe reply received from the CPIO was inappropriate. She stated that the CPIO has wrongly denied the information with the reasons that the matter is sub-judice, though, the required information does not come under exemption provision of the RTI Act. The appellant in hersecond appeal dated 28.08.2017, requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information sought by her.

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 10.07.2017, replied that as the case has already been filed in the court of Civil Judge(Senior Division) Roorkee, and the case is still pending thus, matter is sub judice. Hence, such information cannot be provided at Page 2 of 7 this stage. The FAA vide order dated 14.08.2017, had held that proper reply has already been given by the CPIO.

5. The appellant attended the hearing in person and the respondent Mr. Ataur Rehman, CPIO and AGM, State Bank of India, Haridwar attended the hearing through video conferencing.

5.1. The appellant submitted that the information sought in this RTI application is generic in nature and does not come under any exemptions specified under section 8 of the RTI Act. She specifically stated that the locker no. 235 in question was in the name of her parents i.e., Dr. S.P. Bhatnagar and Mrs. Pushpa Rani Bhatnagar. After Dr. S.P. Bhatnagar left to heavenly abode, Mrs. Pushpa Rani Bhatnagar was the owner of it. Later on the name of the appellant was added as a joint owner/operator. She further submitted that after her father's demise, a dispute arose and accordingly a case was instituted against the State Bank of India (i.e., the respondent in this instant appeal) before the Hon'ble Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Roorkee, which is still pending adjudication. Smt. Rohita explained that she was denied the operation of locker based on the letter dated 03.11.2009 given by her mother Mrs. Pushpa Rani Bhatnagar. The appellant alleged that her mother was an educated lady and the aforesaid letter did not bear her signature instead it had her thumb impression. She alleged that the thumb impression is not authentic and she suspects some malfeasance has taken place behind her back. She also claimed that the bank has not followed the law as per the time being in force with regard to switching over from signature to thumb impression by any customer of the bank and as also traversed that as per the guidelines of RBI, the bank has not intimated the joint owner/operator of the locker about the changes brought in, in Page 3 of 7 connection with the operation of the account/locker in question. The appellant shared her anguish before the Commission that despite being a joint owner of the aforesaid locker, she was deprived of her rights by the respondent by refusing to provide access to operate the same.

5.2 Further, the appellant explained the Commission that Mrs. Pushpa Rani Bhatnagar was living with the appellant during the last stages of her life and never did she bring up the matter of the aforementioned letter in question. She further apprised the fact that one duplicate key was in her possession and the same was lost during transit. The appellant specifically averred that after the death of Mrs.Pushpa Rani Bhatnagar, other legal heirs had given a written representation with regard to preventing her from operating the locker. Subsequently, she alleged that she was having 11 FDRs in her name but consequent upon the demise of her mother Mrs. Pushpa Rani Bhatnagar, she was taken aback to note the fact that all the aforesaid 11 FDRs were fraudulently handed over the ownership of her brother. In this regard, the appellant relied upon a connecting matter decided by this Commission on 24.02.2015 vide Appeal No. CIC/MP/A/2014/000832 (Ms.Rohita vs. State Bank of India), wherein the Former Information Commissioner Mrs.Manjula Prasher had held:

"4. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant submitted that she had sought information regarding a locker at SBI, IIT Roorkee branch opened in the name of her father, mother and herself. Her parents were no more and she had lost the keys of the said locker. When she requested the Branch concerned for duplicate keys of the said locker the Bank denied her the duplicate keys in view of her mother's letter to that effect. When bank finally provided her that letter, she was shocked to see that it was not signed by her mother but a thumb impression was there on the letter while her mother was an educated lady and she always used to sign her papers. Therefore, she requested the bank to verify the thumb Page 4 of 7 impression of her mother on that letter claimed to be submitted by her with her thumb impression and available at SBI Najafgarh branch, Delhi....

5. ...They stated that the appellant's mother had given them the letter dt. 3.11.2009 denying the appellant the right to operate the locker at SBI, IIT Roorkee branch. This letter dated 3.11.2009 had her mother's thumb impressions. They also stated that the appellant's mother had always signed her papers e.g. the nomination forms and locker agreement but letter dt. 3.11.2009 had a thumb impression."

5.3 The respondent submitted that the bank in a general course of action adopts to the use of thumb impression when the customer is not able to subscribe signature due to age concern and the same is the subject matter of the present case.

5.4 The Commission takes a serious view on the bank officers for perfunctory handling of the letter bearing the thumb impression of an account holder without verifying the signature or other instruments in their custody. The Reserve Bank of India vide its Press Release no. 1998-99/584 dated November 5, 1998 have specifically stated:

"The Reserve Bank of India has prescribed a procedure which banks can follow to enable the old/sick/incapacitated account holders to operate their bank accounts. In a circular issued recently, the Reserve Bank has identified two categories of sick/old/incapacitated customers. One, who is too ill to sign a cheque/cannot be physically present in the bank to withdraw money from his bank account but can put his/her thumb impression on the cheque/withdrawal form; and the other who is not only unable to be physically present in the bank but is also unable to put his/her thumb impression on the cheque/withdrawal form due to certain physical defect/incapacity.

The Reserve Bank has, in such cases, asked the banks to get the thumb/toe impression of the sick/old/incapacitated account holders identified bytwo independent witnesses known to the bank, one of the witnesses being a responsible bank official.

The Reserve Bank has further stated that in case the customer cannot put his/her thumb impression and is also unable to be physically present in the bank, the bank Page 5 of 7 should obtain a mark on the cheque/withdrawal form. This mark should be identified by two independent witnesses, one of whom should be a responsible bank official. Further, the customer may be asked to indicate to the bank as to who would withdraw the amount from the bank. This person should also be identified by two independent witnesses. The person who would actually be drawing the money from the bank should be asked to furnish his signature to the bank.

The question of extending suitable facility to old/sick/incapacitated bank customers for operation of their bank accounts had been engaging the attention of the Reserve Bank for quite some time. In consultation with the Indian Banks' Association, the Reserve Bank has decided to offer the above facility to old/sick/incapacitated persons and who are not willing to open a joint account. Similar facility is already available to pension account holders."

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, feels that the bank officers have perfunctorily acted upon the letter bearing the thumb impression of an account holder without following procedure of verifying the signature or other instruments in their custody. Further, the Commission observes that the rights of the appellant were deprived because of the heedless way of functioning of the respondent authority. The Commission therefore directs the CPIO to show-cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed for not providing the information to the appellant as sought in her RTI application and also explain why the public authority should not be directed to pay compensation to the appellant for causing delay in furnishing the information sought. The respondent authority is directed to submit the written submissions, if any, within 10 days. The matter is posted for compliance and penalty proceedings on 05.03.2019 at 3:15 PM.

Page 6 of 7

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) Information Commissioner Date: 18.02.2019 Page 7 of 7

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission