Central Information Commission
Akshay Kumar Malhotra vs Bank Of India on 8 January, 2024
Author: Suresh Chandra
Bench: Suresh Chandra
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग ,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
िशकायत सं या / Complaint No.CIC/BKOIN/C/2022/140353
Akshay Kumar Malhotra ...िशकायतकता/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Bank of India
New Delhi ... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Relevant dates emerging from the complaint:
RTI : 23.05.2022 FA : 20.07.2022 Complaint : 25.08.2022
CPIO : 22.06.2022 FAO : 17.08.2022 Hearing : 04.01.2024
Date of Decision: 05.01.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
SHRI SURESH CHANDRA
ORDER
1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 23.05.2022 seeking information on the following points:
(i) Please inform me date of transfer of above account from Ashok Vihar, Delhi to Shalimar Bagh, Delhi
(ii) Please inform me the documents taken/collected by Bol, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi
2 from me at the time of transfer of account from Ashok Vihar, Delhi.
(iii) Please provide me with the certified copies of the documents taken/collected by Bol, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi from me at the time of transfer of account from Ashok Vihar, Delhi.
Page 1 of 4(iv) Please inform me that since transfer of my above mentioned SB Account from Ashok Vihar Branch, Delhi to Shalimar Bagh Branch, Delhi, how many times the KYC/Re-KYC is done by Bol, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi and please inform me all the respective date(s) on which KYC/Re-KYC was done by Bol, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi.
(v) Please provide me with the certified copies of the documents taken/collected by Bol, Shalimar Bagh Branch, Delhi from me at the time of doing the KYC/Re- KYC on all such different dates as mentioned in point number 4 above. ..., etc./ other related information
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 22.06.2022 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"We have gone through your application and observe that the sought information pertains to your self-account, which doesn't warrant for application under the RTI Act as the same is related to the standard banking operations which is made available to the account holders in accordance with the banking system and norms, upon proper application and identification proof."
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 20.07.2022 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 17.08.2022 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint dated 25.08.2022.
5. The Complainant remained absent during the hearing despite notice and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Manoj Kumar Jain, Dy. Zonal Manager and Ms. Rachna, Law Officer, attended the hearing in person.
Page 2 of 46. Ms. Rachna, Law Officer, while reiterating the contents of the RTI Application stated that the Complainant had sought information regarding date of transfer of his account from Ashok Vihar, Delhi to Shalimar Bagh, Delhi and related issues. She further stated that a response to the RTI application in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, had already been furnished to the Complainant vide their letter dated 22.06.2022. She submitted that on the Complainant's request his account was transferred to their Shalimar Bagh Branch, then the Complainant approached the branch to convert his normal saving account into Basic saving account. Further, as per Bank Saving Bank Deposit account (BSBD) norms of their bank, KYC needs to be updated every 12 months for continuation of account & after KYC compliance account can be operated. For normal SB account Re-KYC for Low-Risk Customer is to be updated every 10 years. Hence, Branch has demanded the Proof of Identity and Address for Re-KYC purpose from Mr. Akshay Kumar Malhotra in 2020 (Complainant) and that he provided 'Masked Aadhar Card' via mail but it was not acceptable by Bank System. Then after lot of follow up the Complainant submitted his KYC and account became active as on 04.05.2023. She informed that the core issue of the Complainant was on internet banking and the same has been resolved. Hence, no further information remained to be provided to the Complainant, she said.
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observed that due reply was given by the respondent vide letter dated 22.06.2022. During the course of the hearing, the respondent informed that the core issue of the Complainant was regarding internet banking which has been resolved. It was not the case that the respondent had not given any reply and no mala fide could be attributed to the decision taken by them. Further, in the absence of the Complainant, the averments made by the respondent were taken on record. Keeping in view the submissions, no further intervention is called for in this case. Accordingly, the Complaint is dismissed.
Page 3 of 4Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
आनंदी राम लंगम)
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनं म
सूचनाआयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक/Date: 05.01.2024
Authenticated true copy
Suman Bala (सुमन बाला)
Dy. Registrar (उपपंजीयक)
011-26180514
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO
Bank of India, Nodal CPIO,
RTI Cell, Star House, H-2,
Connaught Circus, Middle/Outer Circle,
Near P.V.R. Plaza Hall, New Delhi - 110001
2. The CPIO
Bank of India,
Branch Manager & Nodal CPIO,
RTI Cell, Branch-Shalimar (006083),
Ae-90, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi - 110088
3. Akshay Kumar Malhotra
Page 4 of 4