Central Information Commission
T Rajasandar vs Union Bank Of India on 15 November, 2018
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/UBIND/A/2017/146404
T. Rajasandar ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Union Bank of India, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondents
Vidhan Bhawan Marg, Mumbai
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 13.02.2017 FA : 14.04.2017 SA : 03.07.2017
CPIO :
FAO : 03.06.2017 Hearing : 13.11.2018
17.03.2017, 25.04.2017
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Union Bank of India, Vidhan Sabha Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai, seeking information on three points pertaining to an alleged unauthorized credit in his A/c No. 7378xxxxxx39 and the print out he got from the ATM machine after a failed withdrawal attempt, including, inter-alia (i) the name of the drawee and other details of the anonymous Page 1 of 6 cheque No. 306693 which was forcibly credited to his account and the name of the branch where it was deposited, and (ii) reasons for his mini statement request denial and the mobile number to which two SMS alerts were sent from the ATM computer.
2. The appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission on the grounds that the information provided by the two CPIOs is totally irrelevant and baseless with regard to RTI application and also that CPIO's and the FAA's replies are neither transparent nor accountable as per the RTI Act. The appellant also stated that instead of providing the real and relevant data available with them, they tried to cover up the whole episode including the CCTV footage about which not even a single word has been written by them in their replies. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the respondents to provide the information sought by him which he needs for the Revision Petition No. CRMP 1697/2017 pending before the Hon'ble Principal District Sessions Court, Tiruchirappalli.
Hearing:
3. The appellant Shri T. Rajasandar and the respondent Shri K. C. Chaudhary, AGM, Union Bank of India, Vidhan Sabha Marg, Mumbai attended the hearing through video conferencing.
4. The appellant submitted that correct and complete information has not been provided to him by the respondent. The appellant further submitted that since cheque number 306693 was forcibly credited to his account, he is entitled to know the details of the drawee of the cheque. However, the respondent only provided the name of the payee and the account in which the cheque was deposited. He was Page 2 of 6 further informed that the cheque was erroneously credited to his account on 19.08.2016 and was reversed on 19.08.2016. Further, the details of the authorized signatory of the cheque was not furnished to him. As regards point no. 2 of the RTI application, he was informed that the card details (******016271) available in the receipt is insufficient and hence, the requested information cannot be furnished to him. Further, a copy of the CCTV footage of 01.01.2017 was also not provided to him. He further stated with respect to point no. 3 of the RTI application instead of providing reasons for non-supply of mini statement from the ATM and failure to send SMS alert to his mobile number, he was informed that the SMS alert is sent to the customers only after successful transactions and since no transactions happened on 01.01.2017 in his account, SMS alerts were not sent to him. However, no explanation for non-supply of the mini statement was given to him. The appellant submitted that to the best of his knowledge, SMS alerts are sent after every transaction, successful or failed. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provided correct and complete information as sought vide his RTI application dated 13.02.2017.
5. The respondent submitted that point-wise information has been provided to the appellant vide letter dated 17.03.2017 and 25.04.2017. The respondent further stated that the FAA vide order dated 03.06.2017 had observed that details of the drawee of the cheque cannot be provided as the same is of commercial confidence and of fiduciary nature and hence, cannot be provided. As regards point no. 2 of the RTI application, the respondent stated that, perhaps, due to mechanical error, there was a delay in printing of receipts. Due to this, the appellant might have received the receipt of an earlier transaction through the card no. ******016271.
Page 3 of 6The respondent contended that the appellant is seeking transaction details of another card user, which cannot be provided being third party information. As regards, CCTV footage, the respondent submitted that the CCTV footage is made available only in disputed transactions and not for the failed transactions. The respondent clarified that the SMS alert is sent to the customers only after the transactions and since no transactions happened on 01.01.2017 in the appellant's account, SMS alerts were not sent to him. The respondent, however, could not explain as to why the reasons for non-supplying of the mini statement by the ATM was not furnished to the appellant.
Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that in case a cheque is deposited in the account of a customer, he is entitled to seek the details of the depositor. The Commission, however, notes that, as per the appellant, the cheque was erroneously credited to the appellant's account on 19.08.2016 and was reversed on the same date. Thus, this is not a case of deliberate credit to the account of the appellant. Hence, the Commission agrees that details of the drawee of cheque no. 306693 which is held by the bank in a fiduciary capacity, is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act as no larger public interest warrants its disclosure. The Commission also notes that the appellant had sought the details of the card holder of card no. ******016271 which relates to personal information of a third party, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public interest and would cause an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the third party. Hence, its disclosure is exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
Page 4 of 67. The Commission, however, notes that the respondent has not furnished the reasons for non-supply of mini statement by the ATM as sought vide point no. 3 of the RTI application to the appellant. The Commission also agrees with the appellant that normally SMS alerts are sent by the bank after every transaction successful or failed. However, the respondent reaffirmed that SMS alerts are sent only in case of successful transaction. The Commission, therefore, directs the CPIO to provide an appropriate response on point no. 3(a) (i.e. reasons for non- supply of mini statement from the ATM computer machine) of the RTI application to the appellant. The Commission also directs the respondent to file an affidavit with the Commission deposing that no SMS alerts are sent in case of failed/unsuccessful transactions. A copy of the affidavit shall also be provided to the appellant.
8. The Commission also observes that people have a right to request CCTV footage of themselves. The respondent, therefore, should have provided that part of the CCTV footage which had recorded the appellant's image, after severing any information which could have endangered the life and physical safety of any person or compromised the security of the ATM. In view of this, the Commission directs the respondent to provide a copy of the CCTV footage, relating to the appellant, for 01.01.2017, if it is available with the respondent. However, in case, the CCTV recording does not exist, the Commission directs the respondent to file an affidavit with the Commission deposing that no such CCTV recording as sought by the appellant is available with the respondent. Hence, no information can be provided to the appellant. A copy of the affidavit shall also be provided to the appellant.
Page 5 of 69. 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.
10. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
11. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sudhir Bhargava (सुधीर भागगव) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) दिनांक / Date: 14.11.2018 Authenticated true copy (अनभप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. S. Rohilla (एस. एस. रोनिल्ला) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26105682 / [email protected] Addresses of the parties:
1. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Union Bank of India, Union Bank Bhawan, 14th Floor, 239, Vidhan Bhawan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021.
2. Shri T. Rajasandar, Page 6 of 6