Legal notice served in relation to educational bank loan - reasons for debiting the notice charges from the appellant’s account - PIO: the loan was overdue and legal charges were debited as per standard practice - CIC: appeal dismissed
O R D E R
1. The appellant filed an RTI application with the PIO on 11.7.2012 seeking information about his educational loan account opened in 2004. In all, information has been sought on 3 points The CPIO responded pointwise 25.7.2012.
2. Not satisfied with the reply of the PIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 16.8.2012 with the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA upheld the reply of CPIO on 20.9.2012. The appellant approached the Commission on 20.11.2012 in second appeal.
3. The appellant’s representative and the respondent both participated in the hearing through video conferencing.
4. The appellant’s representative referred to the RTI application of 11.7.2012 and stated that he had sought information from the bank on three points, viz. (i) the interest rate(s) charged by the bank from 2004 onwards along with the requisite documentation; (ii) whether the bank issued any reminder/warning to the appellant before sending a formal legal notice; and (iii) why had the bank debited the legal notice charges from his account.
5. The respondent stated that the appellant and his father are well known to the bank and this is also because of the reason that the bank branch itself is located in the premises of the Engg. College where the appellant’s father is working and who also happens to be a co-borrower in the context of the educational loan which the appellant has sought. It is in this background, that the respondent stated, the appellant and his father who are frequent visitors to the bank, had frequently been cautioned by the branch manager that the education loan is overdue.
6. In so far as the three specific points raised by the appellant, the respondent stated that complete statement of account has been provided to the appellant which clearly marked out the rate of interest from year to year. Apart from this, the appellant was given prior indication before the legal notice about the overdue and in so far as the debiting of the legal charges is concerned, the respondent stated, this was as per standard practice followed in the bank. The respondent stated that the bank has kept the appellant fully in touch in respect of the 3 points raised in the RTI application and that no further information is required to be taken.
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 Amit Kumar Jha v. United Commercial Bank in Appeal No. CIC/VS/A/2013/000088