Appellant sought information pertaining to his complaint about not nominating the three people named by him in relation to his PPF account in SBI - The Banking Ombudsman had resolved the complaint - CIC: No interference required
Date of Decision : 19th December, 2016.
1. The appellant, Shri Ashish Kumar Garg, submitted RTI application to the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai seeking information pertaining to his complaint dated 02.09.2015 wherein he had apprised the State Bank of India about not nominating the three people named by him in relation to his PPF account, maintained with them. The bank had nominated only one person with regard to his PPF account. He wanted the certified copies of the decision/directions issued by the Banking Ombudsman to the State Bank of India in his matter, while also asking for the related documents and file notings, etc. through six points.
2. The CPIO, vide letter dated 30.09.2015, informed the appellant that no complaint was received by their office. However, vide letter dated 23.10.2015, the CPIO provided a point-wise response to the appellant, stating that they had not issued any specific circular/ instructions for levying penalty for not following the RBI/MOF rules/circulars or for making PAN card mandatory which mandated for the opening of the PPF account while providing copy of circular for opening accounts in the names of minors. Dissatisfied, the appellant approached the FAA. The FAA vide order dated 03.11.2015 directed the CPIO to verify whether the complaint dated 02.09.2015 had been received in his office, and if it was received, to revisit the queries of the appellant and provide the information sought and also directed the CPIO to furnish information with regard to the last three general queries (points 4 to 6), if available, subject to the provisions of the RTI Act. The CPIO, vide letter dated 01.01.2016, informed the appellant that his complaint was closed after investigation by the Banking Ombudsman Office, in accordance with Section 13(a), while enclosing the copies of the file notings and the replies to the last three queries.
3. Aggrieved with the response of the respondent, the appellant came in appeal before the Commission stating that information sought on points 1 and 3 of the RTI application be provided to him and requested for penalizing the public authority as per the provisions of the RTI Act.
4. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant was not present in spite of a notice of hearing having been sent to him. The respondents stated that the appellant had given complaint to the Banking Ombudsman (BO) on 2.9.2015 asking the B.O. to direct the SBI to nominate three persons in the PPF account and wanted to know what was done on his complaint by the B.O. and also sought copies of file notings and also if the PAN was mandatory for the PPF account and the age limit prescribed by SBI for giving internet facilities. The CPIO had replied vide letter dated 1.1.2016 on point 1 to 3 by enclosing letter of the Banking Ombudsman (BO) dated 31.12.2015, informed the appellant that the complaint was resolved as the bank had taken the nomination of the PPF account that he had given to the bank and the Banking Ombudsman had resolved the complaint. The appellant was not present to indicate shortcomings in the information provided by the respondents.
5. Having considered the submissions of the respondents, the Commission observes that the respondent authority had appropriately responded to the appellant. The Commission finds no reason to intervene in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of.
Citation: Shri Ashish Kumar Garg v. Reserve Bank of India in Appeal No. CIC/MP/A/2016/000992