R Rehana Banu vs Indian Bank on 2 December, 2022

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

R Rehana Banu vs Indian Bank on 2 December, 2022

1. The issue under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 03.11.2020 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 23.09.2020 and first appeal dated 10.10.2020:-

(i) The General Information on the Procedure/Rule/Law followed by the Axis Bank/its officials in Towing/Seizure of the vehicles/cars under loan/hypothecation with their bank, when the said loan is in default or in NPA status?

(ii) The Procedure/Rule/Law followed by the Axis Bank's Officials in Towing/Seizure of my car, Toyota Crysta having no. TN06 U 3665 on 12.09.2020 from the car parking area of his Apartment in Bangalore on 12.09.2020?

(iii) Whether post arbitration award passed by the arbitrator as stated in the reply notice dated 21.09.2020 of the Advocate of Axis Bank Limited, had Axis Bank Page 1 of 4 obtained the Order of Execution of the said arbitration award from the competent Civil Court as mandated under Section 36 of the arbitration and conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 No. 3 of 2016 for its enforceability? (If yes, provide copy of Execution Order passed by the Court).

(iv) Provide copy of arbitration award, claimed by Axis Bank to have been passed by the Arbitrator on 13.09.2019, as stated in the reply notice dated 21.09.2020 of the Advocate of Axis Bank Limited?

(v) Whether any seizure notice was issued by the Axis Bank to him, before seizing of his car, Toyota Crysta having no. TN06 U 3665 on 12.09.2020, from the car parking area of his apartment in Bangalore? If yes then provide copy of the said seizure notice.

(vi) Provide names, background and designation of the Axis Bank's officials and their hired Goons/Musclemen, who were engaged in the unlawful acts of seizing his car, Toyota Crysta having no. TN06 U 3665 on 12.09.2020 from the car parking area of his apartment in Bangalore on 12.09.2020?

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 23.09.2020 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Reserve Bank of India, Chennai, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 30.09.2020 replied to the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 10.10.2020. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 15.10.2020 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed second appeal dated 03.11.2020 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 03.11.2020 inter alia on the grounds that reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory. 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 30.09.2020 and the same is reproduced as under:-

Page 2 of 4

"As the subject matter did not pertain to our Bank, we were returning the application to take up with the concerned public authority directly."

The FAA vide order dated 15.10.2020 upheld the CPIO's reply.

5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Smt. Sreeja Rani, Chief Manager, Indian Bank, Chennai, attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that subject matter of the RTI application did not pertain to them as it was related to car loan sanctioned by Axis bank. Accordingly, they informed that they were not the custodian of the information sought by the appellant.

6. 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 30.09.2020. The respondent was not the custodian of the information sought by the appellant. Moreover, the appellant neither filed any written objection nor presented herself before the Commission to controvert the averments made by the respondent and further agitate the matter. Hence, the submissions of the respondent were taken on record. The Commission is of the view that there is 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: 28.11.2022
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:
The CPIO
Indian Bank, 254 - 260,
Avvai Shamnumgam Salai,
Royapettah, Chennai - 600 014

First Appellate Authority
Indian Bank, 254 - 260,
Avvai Shamnumgam Salai,
Royapettah, Chennai- 600 014

Ms R Rehana Banu,




                                Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission