Information regarding grant of compensation to account holder - PIO invited the appellant for inspection claiming it is not clear as to what has been sought - Appellant: inform how complaint has been processed by bank and action taken - CIC: provide info
O R D E R
1. The appellant filed an RTI application with the PIO on 1.9.2012 seeking compensation for causing economic loss and harassment to one Shri Sharad Anurag Pandey having a SB account in Noroji Nagar branch. In all, information has been sought on six points. The CPIO informed the appellant on 17.9.2012 and 26.9.2012 that his points of information were not clear and he was invited to visit the office on 3.10.2012 to inspect the record.
2. Not satisfied with the reply of the PIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 29.9.2012 with the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA, while upholding the reply of CPIO on 31.10.2012, directed the CPIO to give the appellant another change to visit the office for inspection of records. The appellant approached the Commission on 10.12.2012 in second appeal.
3. The appellant referred to his RTI application of 1.9.2012 and stated that the bank has not provided any information to him.
4. The respondent referred to the letter sent by the CPIO on 26.9.2012 and stated that the appellant’s letters were unclear about the information that he was seeking.
5. The appellant stated that the RTI application is quite clear and that he was seeking information about the action taken by the bank on his representation dated 16.7.2012 and the manner in which the bank had processed it. The appellant explained that his son, Shri Sharad Anurag Pandey, had taken a loan from the HDFC bank for a twowheeler and that he had given some cheques drawn on the respondent bank to the HDFC bank towards payment of EMIs., but the bank had, on account of their mismanagement, stopped payment citing “insufficient funds”, which was not correct. It was in this context that he had made a complaint on 16.7.2012 to the bank.
6. The appellant stated that he wants information on (a) action taken by the bank on his complaint dated 16.7.2012; and (b) photocopies of the notings made by the bank that reflect the manner in which the bank had processed his complaint and the conclusions reached. The appellant further stated that what he has just stated is reflected in point 15 and 16 of his RTI application.
7. The respondent stated that the reference now being made in the hearing to a letter dated 16.7.2012 does not figure anywhere in the RTI application and that the appellant has been submitting RTI applications off and on and that a similar case was earlier heard by the Commission on 3.5.2013 vide appeal No. CIC/VS/A/2012/000323.
8. The respondent is directed to inform the appellant about the action taken by the bank on his complaint/representation dated 16.7.2012 and provide photocopies of notings connected with the case, as sought in para 7 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: Shri Vidyadhar Pandey v. Punjab National Bank in Decision No. CIC/VS/A/2013/000227/05566