Information regarding reason for crashing of hard disk of ATM, registering the crashing of hard disk of ATM, name of agencies engaged in maintenance etc. was sought - Appellant: Contradictory information provided by two banks - CIC: provide information
1. The complainant, Shri Ramfer Maurya, submitted RTI application dated 27 May 2013 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Basti seeking information regarding reason for crashing of hard disk of ATM at SBI court area Basti branch on 29.4.2012, reporting / registering the crashing of hard disk of ATM/failure of ATM/faults in ATM, name of staff/agencies engaged in maintenance of agencies, name of person/employee who had reported the matter of crashing of hard disk etc. through a total of 6 points.
2. The complainant preferred an appeal dated 10 July 2013 to the first appellate authority (FAA) alleging that the CPIO had failed to provide information within the stipulated time period. Vide reply dated 29 July 2013, CPIO denied the information under point 1,2,3 & 4 u/s 8 (1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005 as information sought was related to commercial confidence and further informed the appellant that Hard disk of ATM was not crashed on 29.4.2012 therefore no such reports were available with them. No order had been passed by the FAA.
3. Dissatisfied with the response of the public authority, the complainant preferred complaint before the Commission.
4. The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents were not present during the hearing in spite of a notice having been issued to them. The complainant stated that even though he had made a complaint before the Commission, he wanted it to be treated as second appeal. (Therefore the complainant is referred to as appellant hereinafter). The appellant submitted that on 29.4.2012 the balance in his account was shown as Rs. 40,090/- but when he tried to withdraw Rs. 5000/- the machine went blank. He, therefore, withdrew from another ATM the amount was shown as withdrawn and the available amount was only Rs. 90/. The appellant stated that then he made a complaint regarding the same. But as a response to his RTI application he was informed that the ATM machine had not crashed. He added that his account was in State Bank of Mysore and he withdrew money from State Bank of India. The appellant contended that both the banks had given contradictory information i.e State Bank of Mysore informed that the ATM machine had crashed but State Bank of India informed that the ATM machine had not crashed. He also submitted that the respondents took stand before Ombudsman that the machine had crashed. He also raised a query that when the limit of withdrawal for single transaction was Rs. 10000/, how could amount more than this limit be withdrawn.
5. The Commission is not quite satisfied with the response provided to the appellant and directs the respondents to provide
(i) soft copy of switched log,
(ii) video clipping of cameras in ATM Room severing third party,
(iii) make of machine,
(iv) name of the agency that provides maintenance to the ATM,
(v) copy of engineers’ reports and
(vi) time of restarting the machine along with cause of crashing within one week of the receipt of the order of the Commission.
The respondents will submit their written explanation for not attending the hearing within 10 days. The matter is disposed of.
Citation: Shri Ramfer Maurya v. State Bank of India in Complaint No. CIC/MP/C/2014/000070