Information regarding nomination of successor of an account holder was denied u/s 8 & 9 - Appellant: he was the nephew of the deceased account holder - PIO: as per the bank record, the appellant was not nominated by the deceased - CIC: appeal rejected
O R D E R
1. The appellant, referring to his letter dated 13.9.2012 and the bank’s reply thereto dated 24.9.2012, filed an RTI application with the PIO on 25.9.2012 seeking certified copies of (i) application for change of nominee; and (ii) cheques encashed from 30.5.2005 to 31.7.2008. The CPIO denied the information on 8.10.2012 under section 8 and section 9 of the RTI Act 2005.
2. It appears that the appellant had also filed a similar RTI application on 18.7.2012 which was also replied by the CPIO on 29.8.2012 on the same lines. Not satisfied with the reply of the PIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 14.9.2012 with the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA upheld the reply of PIO on 6.10.2012. The appellant approached the Commission on 27.11.2012 in second appeal.
3. The appellant did not participate in the hearing.
4. The respondent participated in the hearing personally and stated that the RTI application dated 25.9.2012 pertained to a certain account holder in the bank and regarding the matter of nomination of his successor. The respondent stated that the appellant was seeking information which was obviously third party and as such he was denied the information on 8.10.2012 under section 8 and section 9 of the RTI Act.
5. The respondent stated that the appellant had written a letter to the bank stating that the account holder in question has passed away and that he was issueless. The respondent stated that the appellant had indicated to the bank that he was the nephew of the deceased account holder and that he wanted a copy of the letter of nomination written by the account holder.
6. The respondent stated that according to the material available on record, the account holder had already made a nomination. Hence the respondent did not have any hesitation to conclude that the appellant was obviously a third party as he had not been nominated by the account holder. The respondent further stated that the decision of the CPIO was also upheld by the FAA subsequently.
7. The decision of the FAA is upheld. The appeal is disposed of. Copy of the decision be given free of cost to both the parties.
Citation: Shri Sachindra Kr Mishra v. State Bank of India in Decision No. CIC/VS/A/2013/000118/05623