Central Information Commission
Mr. Krishna Murari vs Central Bank on 17 March, 2010
Central Information Commission
File No.CIC/SM/A/2009/000689 & CIC/SM/C/2009/000243
dated 02-09-2008
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)
Dated: 17 March 2010
Name of the Appellant : Shri Krishna Murari
Vill - Basant Pur,
Post - Shoman,
Prakhand Khanpur,
Distt - Samastipur.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Central Bank of India,
Regional Office,
Alalpatti,
Darbhanga - 846 003.
The Appellant was present in person.
On behalf of the Respondent, Shri S.N. Jha, AGM, was present.
2. In this case, the Appellant had, in his application dated 2 September 2008, requested the CPIO for a number of information regarding the insurance cover provided to the borrowers under the Kissan Credit Card (KCC) scheme. In his reply dated 4 October 2008, the CPIO forwarded the desired information in respect of the three branches operating in the Khanpur Block. Not satisfied with this reply, the Appellant preferred an appeal on 15 October 2008. The Appellate Authority, in his order dated 3 December 2008, directed the CPIO to collect the information from all the four branches of the Bank situated within the said Block and to provide the Appellant in a consolidated manner excluding all such information which related to any particular customer. It is not clear if the CPIO carried out the directions of the Appellate Authority. The Appellant has, however, come before the CIC in second appeal alleging that all the information he had sought has not been provided to him yet.
3. We heard this case through videoconferencing.
CIC/SM/A/2009/000689 & CIC/SM/C/2009/000243
4. The Appellant was present in the Samastipur Studio of the NIC whereas the Respondent was present in the Darbanga Studio. We heard their submissions. The Appellant submitted that the various information provided by the respective Branches and the CPIO, from time to time, differed from each other in many ways and it was not clear which information was to be trusted. For example, the information with regard to the total number of loan cases in which insurance cover had been provided varied from reply to reply as also the amount of premium deducted from his own account (No.12). The Respondent, on the other hand, submitted that all the information sought had been finally provided and there was nothing more to be given.
5. We carefully considered the submissions and perused the various replies given by the CPIO and the Branches from time to time. We noticed a lot of material difference among the information provided against some of the queries. This shows complete lack of seriousness on the part of the CPIO in dealing with the RTI-application. Obviously, the CPIO did not care to scrutinise the information he had received from the respective Branches before forwarding it to the Appellant. Even after the Appellate Authority directed him to collect and forward the information in a consolidated manner, the CPIO failed to provide complete and correct information against all the queries.
In the meanwhile, the Appellant had also sent a complaint to the Central Information Commission which (CIC/SM/C/2009/000243) we had remanded to the first Appellate Authority for considering it as first appeal. We found that the Appellate Authority had indeed disposed of his appeal and had clearly directed the CPIO to provide the desired information. Therefore, the order passed in the complaint case becomes infructuous and there is no need for the Appellate Authority to pass any fresh order.
6. In the light of the above, we now direct the CPIO to provide to the Appellant within 10 working days from the receipt of this order all the information in a consolidated and tabular format, separately for all the four CIC/SM/A/2009/000689 & CIC/SM/C/2009/000243 Branches of the Bank operating in the Khanpur Block, along with photocopies of the relevant documents wherever available. We also direct him to explain in writing if he had any reasonable cause for providing such haphazard, incomplete and often contradictory information. If we do not receive his written explanation in time, we will proceed to impose penalty on him in terms of the provisions of Section 20(1) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
7. The Appellant submitted that in the process of running from authority to authority in search of the correct information, he has been put to a lot of financial loss and harassment. From the account given above, we are convinced that the Appellant was indeed put to avoidable financial loss and harassment. He explained that he had to spend a lot of money in commuting to various places for pursuing the applications and in postage and courier charges. Besides, he also submitted that, in the process, he had lost wages for many days. After carefully considering his submissions, we are of the view that the Appellant has indeed suffered both financial loss and harassment for which he deserves to be compensated. Therefore, in exercise of powers vested in the CIC under Section 19(8)(b) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, we direct the Public Authority to compensate him to the extent of Rs.5,000/- towards all the above financial loss and harassment. The CPIO shall ensure that this amount of compensation is sent to him by way of a demand draft/banker's cheque within 20 working days from the receipt of this order.
8. The case is thus disposed off.
9. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra) 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) Assistant Registrar CIC/SM/A/2009/000689 & CIC/SM/C/2009/000243