Brahm Dutt vs Bank Of India on 17 October, 2022

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Brahm Dutt vs Bank Of India on 17 October, 2022

1. The issue under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 07.10.2020 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 17.07.2020 and first appeal dated 31.08.2020:-

(i) Provide copy of bank opening form with all the ID proof & documents of the applicant submitted with the bank in saving bank account no. ***********0569 and ***********1903.

(ii) Provide copy of letters issued to applicant for completion of KYC in the saving bank account no. ***********0569 and ***********1903 since the opening of said bank accounts till date.

Page 1 of 5

(iii) Provide copy of all the documents submitted by the applicant to the bank to complete the KYC in the saving bank account no. ***********0569 and ***********1903.

(iv) Provide bank details policy to seek KYC to its customers & its limitation, once a customer submitted all the required documents to the bank in concerning KYC, then when (limitation of time) the Bank can again demand the documents for KYC, also provide RBI Rules & guidelines in this regard.

(v) Provide copy of letter(s) issued by the bank to the applicant informing the starting of SMS facility on chargeable basis for the saving bank account no. ***********0569 and ***********1903.

(vi) Provide copy of any request letter submitted by the applicant to the Bank for availing/starting SMS facility for the saving bank account no. ***********0569 and ***********1903.

(vii) Provide details information for SMS facility provided free of cost by the Bank to its SB account holders by this branch of the bank; also provide name, account no. & mobile number of the customers. Etc. through 17 points.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 17.07.2020 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Bank of India, Faridabad, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 14.08.2020 replied to the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 31.08.2020. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 24.09.2020 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed second appeal dated 07.10.2020 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 07.10.2020 inter alia on the grounds that reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory. The appellant requested the Page 2 of 5 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 14.08.2020 and the same is reproduced as under:-

(i) "With respect to point no. (i), (ii) & (iii) certified copy of account opening form of A/c No. ***********0569 and certified copy of signature card of A/c No. **********41903 are enclosed. Other documents sought by you are not presently traceable. We advise you to visit the branch along with your KYC documents, recent 3 colored photograph to fill up current account opening forms, specimen card etc. so as to enable the branch to continue to provide you banking services.

(ii) KYC policy and its limitation are already in public domain, available on RBI website as well as on our bank's website.

(iii) With respect to point no. (v) and (vi) certified copy of branch letter no.

FBD:ADMN:07.07.2020 dated 07.07.2020 is enclosed.

(iv) With respect to point no. (vii) and (viii), SMS facility is mandatory as per RBI guidelines. It is available on RBI website, other information sought falls within the exempted category under Section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act, hence cannot be furnished.

(v) With respect to point no. (ix), (x), (xi) and (xii), information sought falls within the exempted category under Section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act, hence cannot be furnished.

(vi) With respect to point no. (xiii), (xiv) and (xv), no such information, as sought by you is maintained by the branch.

(vii) Banking hours is displayed at the entry gate of the branch.

(viii) The information sought is vague and ambiguous, hence cannot be furnished."

The FAA vide order dated 24.09.2020 upheld the CPIO's reply.

5. The appellant's representative advocate Shri Rajender Kumar attended the hearing in person and the respondent remained absent despite notice.

Page 3 of 5

5.1. The representative of the appellant inter alia submitted that reply given by the respondent was incomplete and evasive. The respondent further submitted that in the name of KYC documents the respondent had provided only two pages of documents which were incomplete and for the remaining documents they stated that the same was not traceable. Besides, he stated that information sought related to SMS charges were also not provided by the respondent.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the appellant and perusal of records, observed that the reply given by the respondent was incomplete and evasive. Moreover, the respondent remained absent despite notice. The respondent had not sought leave of the Commission for not attending the hearing and in their absence it was difficult to ascertain as to whether proper reply was given to the appellant or not. In view of the above, Shri Rakesh Kumar Mahajan the then CPIO and Shri Ishwar Kumar, the present CPIO are show caused as to why maximum penalty should not be imposed upon each of them as per section 20 (1) of RTI Act for not providing the complete information. The present CPIO is under obligation to serve a copy of this order on the then CPIO and secure his/her written explanation. All the written explanations (from both the CPIOs) must reach the Commission within four weeks. Meanwhile, the respondent is directed to revisit the RTI application and provide certified copies of the information to the appellant, within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुसुरेशचं ा) ा सूचनाआयु ) Information Commissioner (सू दनांक/Date: 07.10.2022 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराममूत#) Dy. Registrar (उपपंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Page 4 of 5 Addresses of the parties:

THE CPIO: BANK OF INDIA, S.C.O.181- 182, SECTOR 17-C, P.B.NO.6, CHANDIGARH 160 017 THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY UCO BANK OF INDIA, S.C.O.181-182, SECTOR 17-C, P.B.NO.6, CHANDIGARH 160 017 SH. BRAHM DUTT Page 5 of 5

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission