Central Information Commission
Mrl Hemamalini vs Indian Overseas Bank on 29 July, 2016
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No. CIC/SH/A/2015/001247
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 29th July 2016
Date of decision : 29th July 2016
Name of the Appellant : Ms. L. Hemamalini,
D/o. Shri D. Logan, 21/A,
Egavalli Amman Koil Street,
Thiruvottriyur, Chennai 600019
Name of the Public : Central Public Information Officer,
Authority/Respondent Indian Overseas Bank,
Central Office: P. B. No. 3765, 763,
Anna Salai, Chennai 600002
RTI Application filed on : 17/12/2014
CPIO replied on : 13/01/2015
First Appeal filed on : 19/01/2015
First Appellate Authority order on : 18/02/2015
2nd Appeal received on : 13/04/2015
The Appellant was not present .
On behalf of the Respondents, Shri Anand S. M., A.G.M. was heard through audio
conferencing.
File No. CIC/SH/A/2015/001247
Information Commissioner : Shri Sharat Sabharwal
Information sought
Copy of all correspondence between Indian Overseas Bank and the Reserve Bank of India regarding her complaint filed with the Banking Ombudsman. The CPIO reply The CPIO denied the information under section 8 (1) (d), (e) & (g) of the RTI Act. Grounds of the First Appeal Not satisfied with the CPIO's reply.
Order of the First Appellate Authority The FAA upheld the CPIO's reply and also claimed exemption under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act.
Grounds of the Second Appeal Information sought not provided.
Relevant facts emerging during the Hearing, Discussion and Decision File No. CIC/SH/A/2015/001247 The Appellant was not present in spite of a written notice having been sent to her. The Respondents stated that the Appellant had sought information regarding a complaint filed by her concerning her education loan. The CPIO denied her request for copies of all correspondence between the Indian Overseas Bank and Reserve Bank of India regarding her complaint. The Respondents submitted that the Appellant had taken the matter to the Banking Ombudsman and it was disposed of by them on 4.12.2014 vide their letter addressed to the Appellant. They further submitted that the correspondence, whose copies have been sought, was between them and the Banking Ombudsman and the information cannot be provided. The relevant records are before the Banking Ombudsman.
2. In view of the submissions made by the Respondents, we do not consider it necessary to intervene in this matter. The complaint of the Appellant was disposed of by the Banking Ombudsman and she can seek such information concerning the complaint, as is required by her, from the Banking Ombudsman.
3. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
4. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Sd/ (Sharat Sabharwal) File No. CIC/SH/A/2015/001247 Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar File No. CIC/SH/A/2015/001247