Seema Sharma vs Union Bank Of India on 22 March, 2022

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Seema Sharma vs Union Bank Of India on 22 March, 2022

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 09.10.2019 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through the RTI application dated 29.08.2019 and first appeal dated 23.09.2019:-

Through the provisions contained in the Right to Information Act and subsequent to the First Appeal judgment (Appeal no. 111/2019) in response to UBIND/A/2019/60157, the appellant requested to provide the certified copies of the below information:

(i) From the appellant's Union Bank of India Savings Bank Account no.

***********7572, regular home loan EMIs would get deducted between the Page 1 of 4 year 2003 to 2005. Some of these transactions available as a record with appellant are:

(a) Rs. 10,000 dated 07.06.2003

(b) Rs. 20,000 dated 30.06.2003

(c) Rs. 85,000 dated 13.08.2003

(d) Rs. 10,000 dated 14.05.2004 The appellant requested to identify these transactions in your banking records and notify the account number of the mentioned loan acc6ount to which the transfers were made. This loan was jointly taken by me to repay a sum of Rs.

7,00,000 borrowed in December 2002.

(ii) For the loan account identified in (i), the appellant request to provide:

(a) Copy of all the loan requests and approvals granted, including the requests raised by us.

(b) Detailed statement of the loan account from the inception of the loan till its closure. The statement should cover all the payments done towards repayment of loans.

(c) For any cheque/cash payments towards the loan, the appellant requested to provide the names of the depositing individual. This data is generally captured on the deposit slip/cheque and thereafter entered in banking records.

(d) Copy of the no-objection certificate/no due certificate/ closure letter after the loan was completed.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 29.08.2019 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Union Bank of India, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 19.09.2019 replied to the appellant.

Page 2 of 4

Aggrieved with the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 23.09.2019. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 09.10.2019 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 09.10.2019 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 09.10.2019 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 19.09.2019 and the same is reproduced as under:-

(i) Loan account is of pre CBS (computerization) period i.e before year 2005 therefore could not be identified from saving account.

(ii) Required information is not available on record of branch.

The FAA vide order dated 09.10.2019 agreed with the views taken by the CPIO.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Babu Ramji, Chief Manager & Shri Sunil Prakash, Sr. Manager, Union Bank of India, Meerut attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that he sought information regarding her home loan account which was not provided by the respondent till the date of hearing.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that information sought related to loan account of the appellant which was closed in 2004. They further submitted that as per the record retention schedule, the loan account related details were preserved up to 10 years only. Accordingly, they expressed their inability to provide the information.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that the appellant sought information regarding her loan account which was closed in 2004. The respondent during the course Page 3 of 4 of hearing submitted that information sought was very old and the same was destroyed as per the record retention schedule. It was also informed that documents related to the home loan account were preserved up to 10 years only. In view of the above, the respondent is directed to search the records once again and provide a revised point-wise reply/information to the appellant and in case the information/records are not available with them then they should file a sworn affidavit before the Commission deposing that information sought was not available with them. A copy of the affidavit may also be given to the appellant. The above directions of the Commission may be complied with by the respondent within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. With the above directions, the appeal is disposed of.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुसुरेशचं ा) ा सूचनाआयु ) Information Commissioner (सू दनांक/Date: 17.03.2022 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराममूत#) Dy. Registrar (उपपंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

CPIO:

UNION BANK OF INDIA, OPP GIC,BEGUM BRIDGE ROAD, MEERUT, UTTAR PRADESH -250001 FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, UNION BANK OF INDIA, OPP GIC, BEGUM BRIDGE ROAD, MEERUT, UTTAR PRADESH -250001 MS. SEEMA SHARMA Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission