Central Information Commission
Veeresh Berry vs State Bank Of India on 10 July, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के य सच
ू ना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/SBIND/C/2021/661662
Mr. Veeresh Berry ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
State Bank of India
SCO-99-107, RBO-4, Panchkula (14846)
Chandigarh-160018
Date of Hearing : 05/07/2023
Date of Decision : 05/07/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 15/11/2021
CPIO replied on : 29.12.2021
First appeal filed on : NIL
First Appellate Authority order : Not on Record
Complaint dated : 22/12/2021
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 15.11.2021 seeking the following information:
1) Provide Date of opening, date of closure of Maxgain House loan account No. 30331065470 in name of Veeresh Berry at SBI Sector 7 Chandigarh.
2) Reason for closure of above account.
3) Was any request received from Veeresh Berry for closure of account if so supply a copy of of request received from Veeresh Berry for closure of account.1
4) Outstanding balance if any in the above account after closure o account
5) Amount transferred as closure proceeds at the time of closure of above account.
6) Name of account holder and account number in which closure proceeds transferred at the time of closure of account.
7) Have all original documents been returned to Veeresh Berry after closure of above account.
8) Reason for non-return of original documents to Veeresh Berry after closure of account.
9) When will the original documents be returned to Veeresh Berry since account has been closed.
10) Provide a copy of the complete account statement of the Maxgain account no. 30331065470 from inception till closure of account The CPIO given point-wise reply to the Complainant vide letter dated 29.12.2021 which states as under:
"With reference to your RTI application dated 15.11.2021, we provide you point- wise Point no.1: Your Maxgain HL A/c 30331065470-Opening date: 19.02.2008 and Closing information as under. date: 28.12.2018. Point No 2: You had availed a Home Loan amounting to Rs. 34.00 lacs for purchase of flat at Noida under Bank's Maxgain OD scheme on 16.02.2008, wherein you had offered Bank an Interim Security/Guarantee of Smt. Rashmi Bhatia W/o Lt Col Ashok Bhatia, as you had not submitted property documents purchased out of Bank's finance and only allotment letter was submitted to Bank. The said Smt. Bhatia along with her husband Mr. Bhatia were already enjoying Home loan in joint names from our Bank. Since guarantor/mortgagor had offered interim guarantee in your HL, her CIF was linked in CBS at at RACPC level with guarantor flag resulting that, your HL were reflected in the CIF of Smt. Bhatia. On 28.12.2018, Mr. Ashok Bhatia visited RACPC to close all their loan accounts, RACPC officials advised them to visit our branch for closure of all the loans. Accordingly, Mr. Ashok Bhatia visited our Sector 7 Chandigarh branch on the same day and cleared all the outstanding dues in their own loan accounts. He was also asked to pay debit balance of Rs. 846621- of your Maxgain OD account, as your aforesid accounts was also reflected in the CIF of Mr. Ashok 2 Bhatia and branch officials had erroneously closed your aforesaid Maxgain HL A/c.
Point No. 3: No request was made by you..
Point No. 4: There is nll amount outstanding in the account Point No. 5: Rs. 75000.00 was deposited as cash and Rs. 10000.00 was transferred from the account of Ms. Rashmi Bhatia on 28.12.202018 for care of account Point No. 6: Smt, Rashmi Bhatia's account A/a 2020048044 Point No. 7: No, Original documents have not been returned to Mr. Veeresh Berry after closure of account.
Point No. 8. An amount of Rs. 84882/- (Balance outstanding on the inadvertent closure of Maxgain HL A/c No. 30331085470 on 28.12.2018) is recoverable by the bank from Brorrower (Mr. Veeresh Berry). A letter has already been sent to borrower/customer to deposit the same for release of documents Point No. 9: Original documents will be returned after an amount of Rs. 84662.00 is recovered from you.
Point No. 10. You are advised to deposit an amount of Rs. 3068/- for 83 pages for statement of account no, 30331065470, from inception till closure of account"
Being dissatisfied, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated NIL. FAA's order is not available on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Not Present.
Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar, Chief Manager present through Video- Conference.
The Respondent submitted that vide their letter dated 29.12.2021, complete point-wise reply/information, as per the documents available on record has been provided to the Complainant as per his RTI application wherein complete factual position was informed to him.
Decision Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the Commission observes from a perusal of records and after hearing submissions of the Respondent that the core contention of the Complainant in the instant Complaint was non-receipt of information. In response to it, the CPIO explained that the information sought 3 by the Complainant has been duly provided to him as per the documents available on record.
Now, being a Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, the facts of the case do not warrant any action under Section 18(2) of the RTI Act against the CPIO as it does not bear any malafides or an intention to deliberately obstruct the access to information as alleged by the Complainant. Here, it is relevant to quote a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Registrar of Companies & Ors v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. [W.P.(C) 11271/2009] dated 01.06.2012 wherein it was held:
" 61. It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a showcause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed...."
Further, the Complainant is not present to contest the submissions of the Respondent or to substantiate his claims further.
No further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) Information Commissioner (सू सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ,उप-पंजीयक दनांक / Date 4