Prakash Agrawal vs Reserve Bank Of India on 29 January, 2021

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Prakash Agrawal vs Reserve Bank Of India on 29 January, 2021

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 31.12.2018 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 11.08.2018 and first appeal dated 28.09.2018:-

(i) Provide copy of rules and regulation under which banks can demand Police FIR from Cyber fraud victims before processing his/her refund request towards victims own ATM/Debit card fraud, because most of the banks/wallets demand copy of Police FIR when reported by Victims of Cyber Fraud to concern bankers which reduce chances of Fund Recovery due to delay in FIR Filing.

Page 1 of 4

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 11.08.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 10.09.2018 replied to the appellant. Dissatisfied with this, the appellant filed first appeal dated 28.09.2018 The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 01.11.2018 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 31.12.2018 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 31.12.2018 inter alia on the grounds that the CPIO and the FAA did not provide satisfactory reply to the RTI application. 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 replied vide letter dated 10.09.2018 replied that the email dated 08.08.2018 was replied by Department of Banking Regulation (DBR), Reserve Bank of India, on 28.08.2017 and that the Department Of Payment and Settlement Systems (DPSS), RBI replied vide email dated 10.09.2018; and that the RBI had not issued any instructions in respect of mandatory demanding by the banks of copy of Police FIR from the victims of cyber frauds. The FAA concurred with the views taken by the CPIO.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Amitabh Khandewal, Deputy General Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Bandra, attended the hearing through audio conference and Ms. Ankita Yadav, Legal Officer, Shri Hariharan and Shri Punit Kumar Jain, Reserve Bank of India, Bandra, attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that the reply given by the respondent was incomplete and misleading. The appellant further submitted that he had not used RTI Act to seek information, however, he had raised concerns regarding limited role of the Banking Ombudsman and RBI in prevention of cyber frauds. The appellant further submitted that the most of cyber fraud victims were asked to submit copies of FIR while Page 2 of 4 reporting the incident at their respective banks. Therefore, he sought information regarding instructions, if any, issued by the RBI in this regard.

5.2. The respondent while endorsing their reply dated 10.09.2018 inter alia submitted that there were no instructions/regulations given by them to the banks in respect of demanding copies of FIR from victims while reporting cyber frauds. Therefore, there being no such Rules and Regulations, the same could not be provided to the appellant.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observes that due reply was given vide CPIO's letter dated 10.09.2018. Further, the respondent is under an obligation to only provide the information that is available in their custody and available in material form. Further, the appellant appears to have raised concerns regarding cyber fraud and solutions for its preventions. However, the appellant may not seek redressal of such issues through RTI mechanism and may approach appropriate forum for achieving objectives as claimed by the appellant during the course of hearing. That being so, there appears to be no infirmity with the reply given by the CPIO and 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.

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 28.01.2021 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Page 3 of 4 Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :

1. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA Department of Payments Systems, Central Office, 14th Floor, Central Office Building, Shahid Bhagat Singh Marg, FORT, Mumbai -400 001 THE F.A.A, RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, Department of Payments Systems, Central Office, 14th Floor, Central Office Building, Shahid Bhagat Singh Marg, FORT, Mumbai- 400 001 Prakash Agrawal Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission