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 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Pooja vs State Bank Of India on 18 March, 2024

                                    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/2022/120880

Pooja                                                           ... अपीलकता /Appellant

                                     VERSUS
                                      बनाम

 CPIO: State Bank of India,
 Bihar                                                   ... ितवादीगण/Respondents


Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

 RTI : 15.12.2021              FA    : 11.03.2022             SA     : 02.05.2022

 CPIO : 17.01.2022             FAO : Not on record            Hearing : 14.03.2024


Date of Decision: 15.03.2024

                                       CORAM:
                                 Hon'ble Commissioner
                               _ANANDI RAMALINGAM
                                      ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 15.12.2021 seeking information on the following points:

"मेरे पित व० राणा रण िवजय ताप जो क श य क सहायक के पद पर अनुम डलीय अ पताल िब मगंज काय#रत थे िजनक% मृ'यु सड़क दुघ#टना म+ ईलाज के दौरान 02.03.2020 को .ई। मेरे व० पित का वेतन आपका शाखा के मा2यम से ा3 होता था। िजसका खाता सं०- Page 1 of 3 XXXXXX72378 है SGSP के तहत दुघ#टना मृ'यु रािश का भुगतान अभी तक नही .आ।
कारण सिहत स'यािपत सूचना उपल8ध कराने क% कृ पा क% जाए."

2. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal on 11.03.2022. The FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.

3. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of any FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 02.05.2022.

4. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Prabhatnand Sinha, Regional Manager, attended the hearing through video conference.

6. The appellant inter alia submitted that she had not received any communication regarding the RTI fee deficit. She further submitted that the respondent bank had not acted promptly with respect to disbursement of the compensation amount after her husband's untimely death caused due to accident.

7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had intimated the appellant vide communication dated 17.01.2022 that she had submitted the application on non-judicial stamp and the RTI fee of Rs. 10/- was not in proper mode. The CPIO further explained that the compensation amount of Rs. 4 lakhs was credited into the beneficiary's account in 2022. Besides, the appellant's husband Late Shri Rana Ranvijay Pratap was engaged in a contractual post and the bank took some time to calculate and process the sum as per extant norms governing the settlement of compensation claims arising out of accidents resulting into loss of life or major injury. Further, the appellant had raised a grievance regarding shortfall in the settlement of claim. In their latest communication dated 07.03.2024, they advised the appellant to visit the Branch with requisite documents and they assured to extend maximum co-operation to her, to aid her beyond the scope of RTI Act.

8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the appellant contended that she had not received any response from the CPIO. However, the respondent informed that they had Page 2 of 3 intimated the appellant vide letter dated 17.01.2022 regarding defect in RTI fee/IPO of Rs. 10/-. Additionally, they also informed the appellant that the settlement of claim had been processed and she may approach the Branch for any further claims/complaints. Perusal of records revealed that the CPIO had enclosed a copy of their communication dated 17.01.2022. Therefore, it is established that the CPIO had responded to the RTI applicant and had informed her that valid RTI fee was not enclosed along with the RTI application. Nonetheless, the appellant had raised a query seeking reasons behind the delay in processing the compensation amount, which is not squarely covered within the definition of information under Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. That being so, the Commission finds no scope for further intervention in the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

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

Sd/-



                                                                      आनंदी राम लंगम)
                                                (Anandi Ramalingam) (आनं            म
                                                                          सूचना आयु )
                                               Information Commissioner (सू
                                                                दनांक/Date: 15.03.2024
Authenticated true copy

Col S S Chhikara (Retd) (कन ल एस एस िछकारा, ( रटायड )) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:

1. The CPIO State Bank of India, Branch Manager & Nodal CPIO, RTI Cell, Branch-Bikramganj, Distt-Rohtas, Bihar- 802212
2. Pooja Page 3 of 3