Appellant sought the copy of her specimen signature & she was called for inspection - CIC directed the bank to send the scanned specimen signatures of the appellant to their Gwalior branch who may call the appellant to verify the identity of the appellant

ORDER

1. The appellant, Smt. Prabhadevi Lathoria, submitted RTI application dated 20 August 2013 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Mumbai; seeking attested photocopy of the record received regarding specimen signature of the appellant and her husband Shri Daya Ram Lathoria at the time of merger of State bank of Indore with State bank of India in the year 2010, related with Regd. Folio No. 07202011.

2. Vide reply dated 28 August 2013, the CPIO informed the appellant about their willingness to furnish the information after severing any third party information but after receiving payment in that regard sent a letter dated 21 October 2013 allowing inspection of document to the appellant as her identity could not be established on the basis of her recorded signature with them. Not satisfied with the CPIO’s reply, the appellant preferred an appeal dated 30 October 2013 to the first appellate authority (FAA) alleging that she had not been provided the information sought for by the CPIO concerned and enclosed the copy of her PAN card to establish her identity. Vide order dated 21 November 2013, the FAA upheld CPIO’s decision; however, directed the CPIO to return the cost of information received from the appellant and to communicate another date of inspection.

3. Dissatisfied with the response of the public authority, the appellant preferred appeal before the Commission.

4. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant’s representative submitted that the appellant had sought the specimen copy of signatures of the appellant and her husband but the respondent had not provided the same so far and they insisted on inspection of the relevant document even after their having submitting the copy of PAN card to establish her identity. He also submitted that his wife was not very well educated and she had signed the documents in the year 1996 and it may be possible that some difference is there in her signatures. The appellant also stated that it was not possible for them to travel up to Mumbai which is very long distance for inspection of the file due to appellant’s health problems.

5. The respondent submitted that they had provided an opportunity of inspection but the appellant had not availed of the same. They also submitted that the signatures of the appellant marked in the RTI application did not match with the specimen signatures of the appellant present in their records, so they called the appellant for inspection so as to ascertain the identity of the appellant. They added that the specimen signatures was with the Registrar and Transfer Agents i.e. Data Matics in this case. They again submitted that signatures available on the PAN Card was also not the same as in their records. In view of these circumstances they offered an opportunity for inspection to the appellant.

6. on hearing both the parties, the Commission directs the respondents to send the scanned specimen signatures of the appellant to the Branch head of their Patel Nagar Branch, Gwalior who may call the appellant to verify the identity of the appellant and show the specimen signatures to the appellant within 20 days of the receipt of the order of the Commission. The Commission also directs the SBI to intimate the appellant about the date and time of the verification of the specimen signatures at their Gwalior Branch well in advance. The appeal is disposed of.

(Manjula Prasher)

Information Commissioner

Citation: Smt. Prabhadevi Lathoria v. State Bank of India in Appeal No. CIC/MP/A/2014/000246