Central Information Commission
Chiranjeev Soni vs Reserve Bank Of India on 13 October, 2021
Author: Suresh Chandra
Bench: Suresh Chandra
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/RBIND/A/2019/643640 &
CIC/RBIND/A/2019/131032
Chiranjeev Soni ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Deposit Insurance and
Credit Guarantee Corporation ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Byculla, Mumbai
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 07.02.2019 FA : 11.03.2019 SA : 22.06.2019
CPIO : 22.02.2019 FAO : 25.03.2019 Hearing : 06.10.2021
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
SHRI SURESH CHANDRA
ORDER
(11.10.2021)
1. The issues raised in both the appeals CIC/RBIND/A/2019/643640 & CIC/RBIND/A/2019/131032 were identical, hence, it was felt desirable to pass a common order in both the cases.
1.1 The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 22.06.2019 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through the RTI application dated 07.02.2019 and first appeal dated 11.03.2019:-
(i) The Act has not defined "Depositor" and "Small Depositor" to define pervasiveness of the Act hence in the absence of clear definition of depositor, Page 1 of 7 request to clarify which other section/s of Act defines as who all like living person, legal entities, quasi govt. bodies are termed as depositors for insuring their deposits.
(ii) Sec 2(g) use the word in respect of all his accounts, Sec 16(1) on settlement of corporation liability in accordance with Sec 17 use the wording due to him in respect of his deposit thereby these sections explicitly restrict scope of the Act to the deposits held by living person as they are vulnerable in case a bank fails hence request to clarify how far extension of scope and collection of premium on deposits other than from living person is within the scope of law and not outside boundary defined by the DICGC (Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation) Act.
(iii) The DICGC Act has not defined the term "total deposit", "assessable deposit", "net assessable deposit" hence request to clarify how such undefined terms can be taken as base for premium collection, which leads to subjectivity, and taking undefined terms as the base is not outside the scope of the DICGC Act.
(iv) (a) Sec. 2(g) "deposit" require aggregation of unpaid balances due to a depositor in respect of all his accounts by whatever name called without differentiating between deposit and loan/advances hence request to clarify how far DICGC advices to banks to pay premium on total / AD deposit without set off of loan etc. is in compliance with DICGC Act and the same is not outside the boundary defined by the Act.
(b) Sec. 16(3) empower DICGC to set off any ascertained sum of money which the insured bank may be legally entitled, while settling depositors claim, hence would appreciate if DICGC can share the rationale for applying two different sets of rule one for DICGC and another for the bank on the same subject.Page 2 of 7
(v) Sec 2 (j) define insured deposit as the deposit or any portion thereof the repayment whereof is insured hence request to clarify how premium collection by the DICGC on total deposit is justified and the same in compliance with the law when DICGC provide the cover as per Sec. 2(g) only and settle depositor claim in accordance with the provision of Sec. 2(g) and not on total deposit for which DICGC collect premium.
(vi) I request DICGC to quote special provision under the DICGC Act or DICGC regulation or otherwise which differentiate DI from other insurance and exempt applicability of Principle of Indemnity on DI and empower DICGC to collect premium on total deposit but settle depositors claim as per Sec. 2(j).
(vii) Sec. 2(g), Sec. 16(1) and Sec. 17 explicitly limit the scope of deposit insurance scheme to living person only hence request to clarify whether a bank can exclude deposits of legal & other entities etc. while calculating insurable deposit and payment of premium, if response is no, then request to quote relevant section of the Act or special provision if any which enhance scope of the Act beyond living person.
(viii) In view of Sec. 2(g) which require aggregation of unpaid balances without differentiating between deposit and loan account/s and Sec. 16(3), whether a banks can deduct loan and advances if any taken by depositors while arriving at insurable deposit and payment of premium and if the response is no, request to quote specific section/rule which prohibit bank to do so and reasons for applying two different sets of rules one for DICGC while settlement of depositors claim and another for collection for premium.
(ix) In view of Sec. 2(j) and fact that the DICGC provides risk cover in accordance with the provision of this section, whether a bank can pay premium for the sum insured by the DICGC from time to time, if response is no, the reason for Page 3 of 7 collecting the premium for the sum for which no risk cover is provided by the DICGC.
(x) Whether a bank can taken common Sec 2(j) "insured deposit" as the base used by the DICGC under Sec. 16(1) to settle depositor claim by paying maximum defined 15 paisa annual premium (Sec. 15(1) for every rs. 100 deposit, and if no, rationale for the same as dual base cause undue hardship on public interest.
2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 07.02.2019 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation, Reserve Bank of India, Byculla, Mumbai, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 22.02.2019 replied to the appellant. Dissatisfied with the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 11.03.2019. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 25.03.2019 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 22.06.2019 before the Commission which is under consideration.
3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 22.06.2019 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 22.02.2019 and the same is reproduced as under:-
(i) "The term deposit is defined in Section 2(g) of DICGC Act, 1961. All the deposits as defined there are covered up to the specific limit i.e. rupees one lakh. Deposits of Foreign Government, Central Government, State Government, Banks or banking companies and RRB's are not eligible for insurance.
(ii) Section 2(g) captures the definition of deposits.Page 4 of 7
(iii) The premium is charged based on assessable deposits. The term assessable deposits captures definition of deposit as provided in Sec. 2(g) of Act.
(iv) The set off of loans is done when bank goes into liquidation. For the purpose of premium collection, the provisions of Sec. 2(g) and Sec. 15 are followed.
(v) Claims are settled in terms of Sec. 17 of DICGC Act while the liability of the Corporation is defined in terms of Sec. 16 of the Act.
(vi) Collection of premium is as per Section 15(1) of DICGC Act 1961 while liability and the settlement of claims are governed by Section 16 and 17 of DICGC Act, 1961. It may be noted that as per the Internal Association of Deposit Insurers Survey, the premium is charges in majority of the jurisdictions. The size of corpus of deposit insurance fund would help in maintaining public confidence and also help in safeguarding financial stability.
(vii) The design of Deposit Insurance is defined in preamble to the DICGC Act which is different from other insurance. The definition of deposits and liability of the Corporation are specified in Section 2(g) and Section 16 of the Act, respectively.
(viii) Section 15(1) defined premium payable by insured banks while Sec. 16 defines the liability of the Corporation.
(ix) Claims are settled in terms of Sec. 17 of DICGC Act while the liability of the Corporation is defined in terms of Sec. 16 of the Act.
(x) It may be noted that as per the Internal Association of Deposit Insurers Survey, the premium is charges in majority of the jurisdictions. The size of corpus of deposit insurance fund would help in maintaining public confidence and also help in safeguarding financial stability".
The FAA vide order dated 25.03.2019 upheld the reply of the CPIO on query nos. 01 to
09. On query no. 10, FAA had provided the information to the appellant. The FAA further stated that the DICGC Act was in public domain which the appellant could access.
Page 5 of 75. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Dayanand Gund, Asstt. General Manager & Asstt. Legal Advisor and Shri M. Ramaiya, Director & CPIO, Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation, Bandra attended the hearing through video conference.
5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that he was not satisfied with the reply given by the respondent as his queries were not properly answered. He further stated that key terms like Depositor, Small Depositor, Total Deposit, Assessable Deposit and Net Assessable Deposits were not defined in the DICGC Act/Regulation. Therefore, specific information sought was not given by the respondent till date.
5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had already provided point-wise information/reply vide letter dated 22.02.2019. They further submitted that the appellant sought definition or interpretation of various terms which were already defined in the DICGC Act which was available in public domain. The respondent relied on the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. V. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. (2011) 8 SCC 479, wherein it has, inter alia been observed as under:-
".....it is not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant not required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of "information" in section 2 (f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act."
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 definition and interpretation of various terms contained in the DICGC Act which may not fall squarely within the definition of "information" as defined under the RTI Act. The respondent had provided point-wise reply/information to the appellant vide their letters dated 22.02.2019 Page 6 of 7 and 25.03.2019. It was also informed that information sought was available in public domain. There appears to be no infirmity in the reply given by the respondent. That being so, no public interest would be served in further prolonging the matter. Accordingly, both the appeals are 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: 11.10.2021
Authenticated true copy
R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत )
Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७)
Addresses of the parties:
CPIO: DEPOSIT INSURANCE AND CREDIT
GUARANTEE CORPORATION HEAD OFFICE,
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA BUILDING,
2ND FLOOR, OPP. MUMBAI CENTRAL RAILWAY
STATION, BYCULLA, MUMBAI - 400 008
THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY,
DEPOSIT INSURANCE AND CREDIT GUARANTEE
CORPORATION, HEAD OFFICE, RESERVE BANK OF
INDIA BUILDING, 2ND FLOOR, OPP. MUMBAI
CENTRAL RAILWAY STATION,
BYCULLA, MUMBAI - 400 008
SH. CHIRANJEEV SONI
Page 7 of 7