Sumitra Meena vs State Bank Of India on 7 August, 2020

Central Information Commission

Sumitra Meena vs State Bank Of India on 7 August, 2020
Author: Suresh Chandra
Central Information Commission
,
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
, New Delhi - 110067

/ Second Appeal No. CIC/SBIND/A/2018/135971

Sumitra Meena ... /Appellant

VERSUS

CPIO: State Bank of India,

New Delhi. ... /Respondents

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

RTI : 18.12.2017 FA : 13.02.2018 SA : 30.05.2018

CPIO : 16.01.2018 FAO : 17.03.2018 Hearing : 26.06.2020

CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
SHRI SURESH CHANDRA
ORDER

(05.08.2020)

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 30.05.2018 include
non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated
18.12.2017 and first appeal dated 13.02.2018:-

i. Status of appellant's application/complaint dated 03.11.10217 regarding fraud with his SBI A/c
xxxxx1323 ii. Action taken, if any iii. Name, address and telephone no of the office concerned of the
insurance company which covers ATM frauds of SBI iv. Whether his claim has been sent to the said
insurance company, is so, the status of claim. If not, why not?

v. Whether CCTV footage has been checked and saved for further inquiry, if not then why is that
time frame to delete/preserve the same vi. Is there any further cause of action on my part or can
bank pursue the matter at their end.
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/16186849/ 1
 Sumitra Meena vs State Bank Of India on 7 August, 2020

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 18.12.2017 under the
Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO),
State Bank of India, New Delhi, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO replied on 16.01.2018.
Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal dated 13.02.2018. The
First Appellate Authority disposed of the first appeal vide order dated 17.03.2018. Aggrieved by this,
the appellant has filed a second appeal dated 30.05.2018 before this Commission which is under
consideration.

3. The appellant filed the instant appeal dated 30.05.2018 inter alia on the grounds that the
respondent did not provide the information which must be placed in public domain including the
guidelines relating to insurance claim covering protection against ATM cards.

4. The CPIO vide order dated 16.01.2018 provided point-wise reply and submitted that preservation
period of CCTV footage being 90 days was no longer available with them.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent, Shri Vivek Chandra, Assistant General Manager
and CPIO, State Bank of India, Delhi, attended the hearing through audio conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that the bank account statement reflected unauthorised
transactions from different places including Azadpur, Bhalswa, Delhi, Ahmedabad, Una, Rajkot,
Porbander, etc. and she had lost around Rs. 6.40 lakhs within a very short span of time i.e. on
26.01.2017, 01.11.2017. The appellant further submitted that though she had complained about the
incident to the bank within six days on 03.11.2017 of the unauthorised transaction, the CCTV
footage of different ATM outlets were not provided by the bank. The bank had further inquired into
the matter and compensated Rs. 1 lakh to her although she had lost Rs. 6.40 lakhs. Therefore, she
had requested for details of action taken by the bank and reasons for not preserving the CCTV
footage for 90 days though she complained within only 6 days of the 5.2. The respondent while
endorsing their reply dated 16.01.2018 submitted that information as available in their records was
made available to the appellant.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties
and perusal of records, feels that the reply given by the respondent is evasive and incomplete. The
appellant has provided details of the complaint dated 03.11.2017 filed by her i.e. within one week of
the unauthorised transactions. Therefore, the reply of the respondent regarding the non-availability
of CCTV footage, even though the appellant had reported the unauthorized transaction within a
week's time is unjustified and unreasonable. In view of the incomplete information and incongruity
in the facts presented by the respondent, the Registry of this Bench is directed to issue show cause
notice to Shri Vivek Chandra, present CPIO and Shri Dinesh Kumar, the then CPIO, to show cause
as to why penalty under section 20 (1) of RTI Act may not be imposed upon each of them for not
furnishing complete information. Shri Vivek Chandra is given the responsibility to serve a copy of
this order upon the then CPIO and submit his written explanation as well as secure his attendance
on the next date of hearing. All written submissions must be uploaded on the Commission's web
portal within 21 days.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/16186849/ 2

 Sumitra Meena vs State Bank Of India on 7 August, 2020

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) ( ) ) Information Commissioner ( ) /Date: 05.08.2020 Authenticated true copy R.

Sitarama Murthy (. ) Dy. Registrar ( ) 011-26181927(-) Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :

1. STATE BANK OF INDIA Region- II 3rd Floor, Delhi Zonal Office- IV, 11, Sansad Marg, New
Delhi- 110001 The F.A.A., GENERAL MANAGER (NW-4), State Bank of India, D-BLOCK, 8TH
FLOOR, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, 11, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI - 110 001 SUMITRA MEENA

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/16186849/ 3