Chandrawati vs State Bank Of India on 20 October, 2022

[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Central Information Commission

Chandrawati vs State Bank Of India on 20 October, 2022

Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta

                          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/2021/115365

Mrs. Chandrawati                                  ... अपीलकता/Appellant
                                  VERSUS
                                  बनाम
CPIO                                              ... ितवादी/Respondent
State Bank of India
RBO, Region-3, Navyug Market
Ghaziabad, UP-201001

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:-

RTI : 01-12-2020           FA     : 15-02-2021         SA      : 08-04-2021

CPIO : 30-01-2021          FAO : 18-03-2021            Hearing : 18-10-2022

                                 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, Ghaziabad, UP. The appellant seeking information is as under:-

Page 1 of 4

2. The CPIO vide letter dated 30-01-2021 has provided point-wise reply to the appellant. Being dissatisfied with the same, the appellant has filed first appeal dated 15-02-2021 and requested that the information should be provided to her. The FAA vide order dated 18-03-2021 upheld CPIOs reply and disposed the appeal. She has filed a second appeal before the Commission on the ground that information sought has not been provided to her and requested to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information.

Hearing:

3. The appellant attended the hearing in person. The respondent, Shri Pravin Kumar, Assistant Manager attended the hearing in person.

4. Both the parties submitted their written submissions and the same has been taken on record.

5. The appellant submitted that the desired information has not been provided to her by the respondent on her RTI application dated 01.12.2020.

6. The respondent submitted that vide their letter dated 30.01.2021, they have informed the appellant that "no contract has been made between customer service provider Sh. Narendra Kumar Saini and State Bank of India as no such CSP is attached with their Loni branch."

Decision:

7. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that the appellant has sought information regarding CSP Narendra Kumar Saini and other queries related thereto. It has been observed that the appellant had opened a saving account no. 34168663793 in SBI Customer Service Center Balram Nagar, Loni (Ghaziabad) on 23.03.2017 with zero balance, this service center was being operated by Shri Narendra Kumar Saini duly authorized by the competent authority. The appellant is claiming that she had deposited Rs. 51, 336/- in the said saving Page 2 of 4 account and when she went to withdraw some amount from her account, she has been informed that there is no credit balance in her account and hence payment cannot be made. It has been informed by the appellant that at later stage, she noticed that Shri Narendra Kumar Saini was being impersonated by Shri Sanjay Kumar Saini who has withdrawn the amount from her account and thus committed fraud. In this regard, the Commission is of the opinion that Shri Narendra Kumar Saini has committed fraud with the appellant as alleged by the appellant, which is her grievance and such grievances cannot be redressed under the purview of the RTI Act, 2005.

8. In light of the above observations, the Commission is of the view that factual position as per their available records has already been furnished by the respondent vide their letter no. RBO/RTI/SKC/1632 dated 30.01.2021 which is found to be satisfactory and same is being upheld by the Commission. For the redressal of her grievance related to the fraud committed with the appellant by the said person, if any, the appellant may either file a complaint before the appropriate police station or she may approach the appropriate grievance redressal mechanism in public authority or any other appropriate forum as RTI is not a forum for redressal of grievances.

9. No further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.

10. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.

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

Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज कु मार गु ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date : 18-10-2022 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा), Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक), (011-26105682) Page 3 of 4 Addresses of the parties:

1. CPIO State Bank of India RBO, Region-3, Navyug Market Ghaziabad, UP-201001

2. Mrs. Chandrawati Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission