Appellant sought for steps taken by Banking Ombudsman regarding his complaint number and details of Conversation made with bank - CIC found no infirmity in the reply and upheld the order of PIO as a sequel to further clarifications tendered during hearing
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 06.09.2021 seeking the following information:
“1) What are the steps taken by Banking Ombudsman regarding my complaint number 202122011007985?
2) What is the banks response?
3) What is the actual status of my complaint?
4) Conversation between bank and Ombudsman with date?
5) By when the complaint will be closed?”
The CPIO furnished a pointwise reply to the Appellant on 24.09.2021 stating as under:
“1. The complaint was received in our office on 18.06.2021 and on 21.06.2021 it was sent to bank to submit its comments. Then a notice was issued to bank on 27.07.2021 to further provide its comments. Bank vide its reply dated 24.08.2021 informed that the concerned issue was under investigation at their end for eligibility of student for CSIS subsidy. Bank vide email dated 15.09.2021 informed that it has credited subsidy for the loan account.
2. Bank vide email dated 15.09.2021 replied that the CSIS subsidy for the concerned loan account has been credited to the complainant account. Bank has credited Rs 158327/- in complainant's a/c as Interest subsidy on 15.09.2021.
3. The complaint is closed.
4. Please refer to information furnished in point number 1.
5. The complaint was closed on 16.09.2021 and a closure letter enclosing all the details was sent to you on your email id dated 16.09.2021.”
Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.10.2021. FAA’s order dated 26.04.2022 had upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not Present.
Respondent: Shivakant Pathak, AGM and Pradeep Kumar Rai, Assistant Legal Advisor present through Video-Conference.
The written submissions of the Respondent are taken on record.
The Respondent submitted that vide their letter dated 24.09.2021, point-wise reply/information, as per the documents available on record was provided to the Appellant. The Respondent submitted that the FAA had also upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the Respondent and upon perusal of records, observes that the Appellant in his second appeal submitted that he is not satisfied with the response given by the Respondent on his RTI application. The Respondent apprised the Commission that point-wise reply/information, as per the documents available on record was provided to the Appellant; in the spirit of the RTI Act.
The Commission is of the considered opinion that the CPIO is only a communicator of information based on the records held in the office and hence, he cannot be expected to do research work to deduce anything from the material therein and then supply it to him. The CPIO can only provide information which is held by them in their records within the public authority.
In this regard, the Commission finds no infirmity in the reply and as a sequel to it further clarifications tendered by the CPIO during hearing as the same was found to be in consonance with the provisions of RTI Act.
Further, the Appellant is not present to contest the submissions of the Respondent or to substantiate his claims further.
Hence, no intervention of the Commission at this stage is required in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Citation: Paramveer Sharma v. O/o the RBI Ombudsman, RBI, CIC/RBIND/A/2022/606824; Date of Decision: 21/08/2023