M. Senthil Kumar vs State Bank Of India on 10 November, 2021

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

M. Senthil Kumar vs State Bank Of India on 10 November, 2021

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 04.05.2019 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through the RTI application dated 28.01.2019 and first appeal dated 11.03.2019:-

 Seeking information on the SBI YONO APP pre approved loan of one lakh at SBI, PH Road Branch, Chennai (IFSC Code - 016555) with regard to the disparity in the EMI deducted against the stipulated amount.

(i) I have fixed the 12 months tenure for SBI YONO APP pre approved loan at my discretion. However, the public authority of SBI in response to his petition has provided e-mail communication dated 10.01.2019 and 22.01.2019 to the Page 1 of 5 petitioner that EMI repayment will be Rs. 9747 per month for 11 months only.

The email also states that the account will be closed earlier by one month if the client pays Rs. 9747 as EMI per month for 11 months. Provide reasons for fixing the 11 months tenure at your end instead of 12 months tenure as stipulated through SBI YONO APP according to the discretion of the client/customer.

(ii) In response to the above cited references, the remaining tenure of 10 months should have been reflected in the SBI YONO APP instead of 11 months since Rs. 9747 has already been deducted as EMI on 03.01.2019. Provide reasons for not reflecting the correction in the SBI YONO APP.

(iii) Provide information as to why the mistake in the SBI YONO APP has not been corrected till now despite the fact that SBI YONO APP has displayed that remaining EMI to be paid Rs. 9747/- per month for 11 months instead of 10 months and hence the SBI YONO APP must have been wrong.

(iv) Provide the name and designation of the public authority of SBI who is in charge of service matters related to SBI YONO APP.

(v) Provide information on the name and designation of public authority of SBI against whom grievance complaint can be lodged for providing misrepresentation of material facts to the client causing enormous mental agony in case, if the SBI YONO APP were to deduct Rs. 9747 as EMI for 12 months.

(vi) The email communication from the public authority of SBI to the petitioner dated 22.01.2019 states that there is no manual intervention in such accounts for alteration of EMI. Hence, it is obvious that such SBI YONO APP is machine related one and human intervention is not possible. Provide information as to what the petitioner/customer needs to do in case. If the SBI YONO APP were to Page 2 of 5 be deducted Rs. 9747 as EMI for 12 months as default payment in contrast to the 11 months as communicated in the said email.

(vii) The email communication from the public authority of SBI to the petitioner dated 22.01.2019 states that there is no manual intervention in such accounts of SBI YONO APP for alteration of EMI. Provide information on what basis the public authority of SBI gives assurance that repayment of EMI per month at the rate of Rs. 9747/- is for 11 months only. However, EMI for 12 months could also be deducted without human intervention and hence information provided by the public authority is prima facie contrary to the existing facts in SBI YONO APP.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 28.01.2019 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank Bhavan, Mumbai, Maharashtra, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 01.06.2019 replied to the appellant. Dissatisfied with the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 11.03.2019. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 16.03.2019 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 04.05.2019 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 04.05.2019 inter 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 gave reply on 01.03.2019 and the same is reproduced as under:-

(i) "The tenure has been fixed at 12 months and not 11 months. Loan statement has been enclosed for your ready reference.

(ii) As on date, the remaining tenure shows as 10 months (installment for January and February paid - two installments paid out of 12 installments) Page 3 of 5

(iii) The loan tenure has been correctly fixed at 12 months only. On sanction date itself, one EMI has been recovered and hence remaining EMI has been showed correctly as 11 months.

(iv) Digital Banking Department, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Chennai.

(v) Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Regional Business Office - 1, 231 NSC Bose Road, Parrys Corner, Chennai - 600001

(vi) The EMI of Rs. 9747/- will be deducted starting from January 2019 -

December 2019.

(vii) EMI of Rs. 9747/- has been calculated for a repayment schedule of 12 months only".

The FAA vide order dated 16.03.2019 agreed with the views taken by the CPIO.

5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Shri R Balaji, Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Chennai, attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the appellant took pre-approved loan of Rs. one lakh through SBI YONO APP. The appellant was having issues with regard to EMI deducted from his account. They stated that YONO App provided facilities for pre-approved loan and system calculates the EMI based on the inputs given by the customer/user. As per their record the appellant's loan was for the term of 12 months, repayment was scheduled for 11 months. Hence, EMI was calculated as Rs. 9747/- by the app. There was no manual intervention in such accounts for alteration of EMI. It was contended that if the appellant still had any grievances, he may visit concerned branch and resolve his grievance.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observed that due information/reply was given by the respondent vide letter dated 01.03.2019. Perusal of the RTI application reveals that the appellant had some grievance with regard to EMI on his pre-approved loan availed through YONO app, the same may be raised before an appropriate forum as the relief Page 4 of 5 sought does not lie with the Commission. Moreover, there was neither representation, nor written submission on appellant's side to controvert the submissions made by the respondent. Hence, the submissions of the respondent were taken on record. Further, there appears to be no public interest in further prolonging the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेशचं ा) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) दनांक/Date: 09.11.2021 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराममूत ) Dy. Registrar (उपपंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :

1. STATE BANK OF INDIA REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE, REGION - 1, NETWORK -

1, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, ZONE - 1, 231, 5TH FLOOR, N.S.C. BOSE ROAD, CHENNAI -600 001 THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, GENERAL MANAGER (NW-1), STATE BANK OF INDIA, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, NUNGAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI - 600006 M. SENTHIL KUMAR Page 5 of 5

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission