Information about the number of beneficiaries who have benefitted from the PMRY, who became defaulter and who had serviced their debts - allegation of discrimination by the bank in terms of compromises made - CIC: provide information
O R D E R
1. The appellant filed an RTI application with the PIO on 7.9.2012 seeking particulars of the loan beneficiaries under the Prime Minister Employment Scheme. In all, information has been sought on 14 points. The CPIO responded pointwise on 6.10.2012.
2. Not satisfied with the reply of the PIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 30.10.2012 with the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA upheld the reply of CPIO on 7.11.2012. The appellant approached the Commission on 31.1.2013 in second appeal.
3. The appellant and the respondent both participated in the hearing through video conferencing.
4. The appellant referred to the RTI application of 7.9.2012 that there were 13 questions which she had posed in the RTI application, but the CPIO’s response was mechanical. She further stated that while some information was provided, but information on most critical points was not provided.
5. The respondent stated that they do not have any intention to withhold any information and keeping this in view, they have provided information on the various points, but they did not give information under the category of third party information or confidential information. The respondent stated that they have provided information about the number of beneficiaries that have been benefitted from the Prime Minister Rozgar Yojana (PMRY) as also the number of beneficiaries who became defaulter and those who had serviced their debts. The respondent further stated that they have also given general information about those where settlement had been reached.
6. The appellant stated that the bank has been discriminatory in terms of compromises made and that the particular instance of her husband was such where his loan account was not compromised and that while he had paid the amount what the Branch Manager had asked him to pay under the scheme of compromise, but the bank did not settle his matter in the same manner in which settlement was done in the case of other persons. The appellant explained that her husband had taken a loan for opening a small kirana store and had deposited Rs.11,000/ as against the outstanding loan of Rs.22000/ at one stage, as advised by the branch manager, but his case was not settled. The appellant stated that it was in this context that the appellant was seeking information about her husband’s account who had taken this loan.
7. The respondent stated that since the appellant was seeking information about her husband’s loan matter, the information was denied treating it as third party information.
8. What emerged from the hearing was that the following information should be provided by the bank: (i) The statistics about the number of defaulters under PMRY for the year in question stated in the RTI application and the number of loan account holders with whom the bank reached a settlement;
(ii) The process followed by the bank for debt recovery; and
(iii) Statement of account of the appellant’s husband referred to in the RTI application in respect of the loan taken alongwith calculation sheet pertaining to the outstandings, default and overdues.
9. The respondent is directed to provide to the appellant information on the three points mentioned in para 8 above, within 30 days of this order. The appeal is disposed of. Copy of the decision be given free of cost to both the parties.
Citation: Smt. Krishna, W/o Shri Mahesh Kumar v. Bank of Baroda in Decision No. CIC/VS/A/2013/000362/05721