Information regarding cancellation of appellant’s ATM Card without his consent was sought - Respondent: ATM card was deactivated by the bank due non compliance of the KYC norms & appellant has got the SBI ATM card - CIC: information has been provided
1. The appellant submitted RTI application dated September 26, 2013 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Lucknow; seeking information regarding cancellation of his ATM Card without his consent etc; through a total of 5 points.
2. Vide reply dated November 21, 2013; the CPIO denied information on points 2, 3 & 4 on the ground that information sought did not come within the purview of ‘information’ defined u/s 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of the RTI Act, 2005 and provided information on point nos. 1 & 5 to the appellant. Not satisfied with the CPIO’s reply, the appellant preferred an appeal dated December 9, 2013 to the first appellate authority (FAA). Vide order dated January 10, 2014; the FAA upheld the CPIO’s decision.
3. Dissatisfied with the response of the public authority, the appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission.
4. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant submitted that he sought information regarding cancellation of his ATM card through a total of 5 points.
5. The respondents submitted that ATM card was issued in the name of the appellant but later on it was deactivated by the bank due non compliance of the KYC norms. They had sent a letter dt. 21.11.2013 to the appellant seeking renewed KYC form and verification of new address but the appellant had not submitted anything. They had sent the ATM card on appellant’s address on 20.9.2013 through registered post but it was returned undelivered because of incomplete address, after that the ATM card was deactivated. The appellant contested the respondent’s claim and stated that when he went to fulfill KYC procedure at the bank, then the Branch Manager informed him that his ATM card had been already deactivated in spite of the fact that the said Branch Manger had asked him to visit the bank on a particular date to fill his KYC form and receive his ATM and he actually visited the branch within that time period, but he had no documentary evidence for the same and stated that it was oral communication. The respondents also submitted that the appellant had got SBI ATM card on 12.11.2014 which the appellant confirmed.
6. In view of the above, the Commission observes that information as available with the respondents had been provided to the appellant; therefore the Commission upholds the respondent’s decision.
Citation: Shri Prakash Mohan Rai v. State Bank of India in Appeal No. CIC/MP/A/2014/001118