Seeking information pertaining to an ATM transaction - appellant alleged delay in response - Respondent: reply was returned by the postal authorities stating that the address was incomplete - CIC: information should be as per daily log report
1. The appellant filed an RTI application on 02.09.2011 seeking information pertaining to an ATM transaction.
2. The PIO responded on 01.03.2012 and informed the appellant about his incomplete address. The appellant filed a first appeal on 12.01.2012 with the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA responded on 16.02.2012. The appellant filed a second appeal on 07.08.2012 with the Commission.
3. The respondent participated in the hearing through video conferencing. The appellant appeared personally. The appellant arrived late for the hearing.
4. The respondent stated that the respondent has not received a copy of the second appeal but from what the respondent understood there are two issues that needed to be taken up in the hearing today. The respondent stated that the two issues are (i) the appellant statement that the bank had breached the timelines prescribed in the RTI Act while responding to the RTI application and (ii) whether the information sought has been sent.
5. The respondent stated that the RTI application was dated 02.11.2011 which was received in the bank on 05.02.2011 and it was acknowledged by the bank on 09.11.2011 and responded to on 03.12.2011. The respondent stated that the response sent by the bank was returned by the postal authorities stating that the address was incomplete. This is why the bank regional office then contacted the appellant who provided the correct address and then the information was resent to the appellant.
6. The respondent was told in the course of the hearing that the material on record in the Commission's file has different date. The explanation provided by the respondent was that the letters they are referring to may not be with the Commission, because the letter with the Commission pertained to the date of the resent letter that followed the sequence of events as narrated, i.e., on account of the incomplete address. 7. The respondent stated that in so far as the information is concerned, the facts are that the appellant is an account holder of the Syndicate Bank who operated the ATM of the Bank of India. The appellant had said that he had made three attempts for getting money from the ATM in the first attempt Rs.10,000/, in the second attempt Rs.10,000/ and in the third attempt Rs.5000/; however according to the appellant he failed to get any money out. The respondent stated that the respondent bank took up this matter with the Bank of India and the information they received was that the first attempt had resulted in a successful transaction of Rs.10,000/ but the second and third attempt was unproductive. The respondent stated that according to the bank rules following investigation, the necessary adjustments were made in the account of the appellant.
8. The respondent stated that the Syndicate Bank on 3.12.2011 addressed the points mentioned by the appellant in his RTI application of 02.11.2011 and that the full information had been provided. The respondent stated that if there is any further clarification which the appellant will seek that will also be provided.
9. The appellant stated that he was seeking information about certain ATM banking transaction. He said that he has received a response from the bank, but any information should be as per the daily log report. The appellant stated that he wants the bank to verify the fact from the daily log available in respect of the question why was he reimbursed only Rs.15,000/ when his claim was of Rs.25,000/ taking into account that he held the slips for Rs. 25,000/ and that he was unable to withdraw any money.
10. The respondent is directed to provide to the appellant, within 30 days of this order, the information sought in para 9 above, i.e., whether the daily log books were used to verify the facts. The appeal is disposed of.
Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Citation: Shri Chander Prakash Sharma v. Syndicate Bank in Decision No. CIC/VS/A/2012/001198/04243