V. Arunkumar vs Bank Of India on 26 February, 2021

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

V. Arunkumar vs Bank Of India on 26 February, 2021

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 17.01.2019 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 16.06.2018 and first appeal dated 12.10.2018:-

 The information / document sought pertained to the appellant's education loan account XXXXXXXXX78 in the respondent bank:

i. Details of periodicity and chronology of such audits imposed towards the appellant's Loan Account no. ************578 to date since its dispersal.

Page 1 of 4

ii. Copy of all those periodical Income Revenue Certificates & Systemic Vouchers which had been generated and being submitted to the scrutiny of the Statutory Auditing Authorities by the Bank.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 16.06.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Bank of India, Zonal Office, Coimbatore, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO replied on 20.10.2018. Not having receipt of any response from the CPIO within the stipulated time, the appellant filed first appeal dated 12.10.2018. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) did not pass any order. Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 17.01.2019 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 17.01.2019 inter alia on the grounds that information sough was denied by the CPIO. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the complete information.

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 20.10.2018 replied that statutory audit was conducted once in a year and further expressed their inability to provide copies of all periodic income revenue certificate and systematic vouchers on the ground of third party. The FAA did not pass any order.

5. The appellant along with his representative Shri Deena Dayal and on behalf of the respondent Shri Animesh Baruah, CPIO, Bank of India, Coimbatore, attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that he had taken education loan from the respondent bank and the rates of interest applicable on his education loan were changed from time to time since its disbursal i.e. on 4.11.2011. When he approached to the bank, he was informed that there was floating rate of interest charged on his education loan as per the Loan Disbursal Agreement. Therefore, in order to verify such statement he filed this RTI application and sought systematic vouchers in respect of his loan account which was derived for specific purpose of auditing. However, information/documents sought was provided by the respondent till the date of hearing.

Page 2 of 4

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that there was nothing called systematic vouchers in their banking system hence they expressed their inability to provide the same. They further submitted that audit was done periodically on sample basis in totality and not all the accounts were audited. They stated that auditors as per the guidelines of ICAI/RBI scrutinize the books of accounts of Branch and collect information required by them to form an audit opinion as per norms. The Auditors were given access to bank systems to generate reports for them. They further submitted that no individual account was audited by the auditors. Besides, they informed that the appellant had taken education loan of Rs. 1,52,000/- on 04.01.2011 and the account turned into NPA on 31.07.2018. They also stated that the appellant had not paid the principal or interest towards the loan availed, except for a payment of Rs. 1,653/- in the account since its inception. They contended that the appellant instead of making repayment in the loan account had filed RTI application putting undue pressure on the public authority.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observes that due reply has been given by the respondent vide their letter dated 20.10.2018. Though, there was delay but the same was inadvertent. The respondent during the course of hearing inter alia clarified that no systematic vouchers as claimed by the appellant in his RTI were generated by them hence copies of the same could not be given. Besides, they also confirmed that the appellant's account was not audited by the auditors as the audits were done in sample basis and not individually as per the norms/rule of ICAI/RBI. In view of the same and reply given by the respondent, 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.

Sd/-

                                                                               सुरेश चं ा)
                                                            (Suresh Chandra) (सु        ा
                                                                            सूचना आयु )
                                                 Information Commissioner (सू
                                                                  दनांक/Date: 26.02.2021
Authenticated true copy

R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत )


                                                                                    Page 3 of 4
 Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७)

Addresses of the parties:
CPIO :
1. BANK OF INDIA
ZONAL OFFICE COIMBATORE, STAR
HOUSE, 324, OPPANAKARA
STREET, COIMBATORE - 641 001

THE F.A.A,
BANK OF INDIA,
ZONAL OFFICE
COIMBATORE,
STAR HOUSE, 324,
OPP ANAKARA STREET,
COIMBATORE - 641 001

V. ARUNKUMAR




                                Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission