Central Information Commission
Sanjay P Somaiya vs State Bank Of India on 18 August, 2018
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/2017/128982
Sanjay P. Somaiya ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: State Bank of India,
Regional Business Office, ... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Vile Parle, Mumbai.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 06.02.2017 FA : 06.03.2017 SA : 24.04.2017
CPIO : 02.03.2017
FAO : 20.03.2017 Hearing : 13.08.2018
15.04.2017
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Malad West Branch, Mumbai seeking information on five points, including, inter-alia, (i) day to day status and progress report of his letters dated 27.07.2010, 05.04.2016 & 16.05.2016, and (ii) details of action taken on these letters and if 'no action' was taken, reason recorded thereof.
Page 1 of 52. The appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission on the grounds that he is not satisfied with the information provided by the CPIO.. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide information free of cost, to impose a penalty and initiate disciplinary action against the CPIO for not providing information, to make remarks in the SRC books of persons responsible and to compensate him for the expenses incurred by him.
Hearing:
3. The appellant Shri Sanjay P. Somaiya attended the hearing through audio conferencing. The respondent Ms. Rethi N., Deputy Manager, State Bank of India, Malad West Branch, Mumbai attended the hearing through video conferencing.
4. The appellant submitted that he had availed a loan against mortgage of his property i.e. Flat no. A-406, Kankia Park-1 opposite Avenue Hotel, Thakur Complex, Kandivali (East) Mumbai in the year 2002. The entire loan amount was repaid in the year 2008. However, despite several requests original documents of his flat have not been returned to him. The appellant stated that in the absence of original documents it would not be possible for him to sell the flat. The appellant further stated that vide RTI application dated 06.02.2017, he had sought, inter-alia, the day to day status and progress report of his letter dated 27.07.2010. However, the respondent had stated that the letter dated 27.07.2010 was not available with them. The appellant informed the Commission that the letter was personally handed over to the respondent bank by him. The appellant further stated that obtaining duplicate copies of the documents will not only take time but also cost lot of money. The appellant therefore, requested the Commission to direct the Page 2 of 5 respondent to pay him compensation of Rs.20,000/- for the financial loss as well as mental harassment caused to him.
5. The respondent submitted that all original documents submitted by the loanees are kept in the record room with the Retail Assets Central Processing Centre (RACPC). Hence, the branch had taken up the matter with RACPC Bandra Kurla Complex (BKC) Bandra, RACPC Andheri and RACPC Borivali. However, all three of them had informed that the relevant documents are not available with them. The respondent also stated that the records are not traceable despite best efforts. The respondent admitted that most probably the documents have got lost. The respondent further submitted that an FIR in this regard would be lodged and a certificate regarding the loss of documents shall also be furnished to the appellant.
Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that loss of original documents of the title of the property is a serious matter. The Commission also observes that due to this, the appellant has not only suffered financial loss but also unnecessary harassment and mental tension. Therefore, in exercise of the powers vested in the CIC as per Section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act, the Commission, directs the respondent to compensate the appellant by an amount of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only). Accordingly, the CPIO should ensure that this amount is remitted to the appellant by demand draft/pay order. The Commission also directs the respondent:
a. To file an affidavit with the Commission deposing that no records relating to original documents of the title of the property i.e. Flat no.Page 3 of 5
A-406, Kankia Park-1 opposite Avenue Hotel, Thakur Complex, Kandivali (East) Mumbai are available with respondent. A copy of the affidavit shall also be provided to the appellant.
b. To issue a certificate, certifying that all original documents pertaining to the title of the property i.e. Flat no. A-406, Kankia Park-1 opposite Avenue Hotel, Thakur Complex, Kandivali (East) Mumbai has been lost.
The above directions of the Commission shall be complied with, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order under intimation to the Commission.
7. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
8. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sudhir Bhargava (सुधीर भाग व) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date:14.08.2018 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) S. S. Rohilla (एस. एस. रोिह ला( Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26105682 / [email protected] Page 4 of 5 Addresses of the parties:
1. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Regional Business Office R-II, Yogi Smruti Plot No. 9, 1st Floor, 10th Road, JVPD Scheme, Juhu, Vile Parle, Mumbai-400049.
2. Shri Sanjay P. Somaiya, Page 5 of 5