Mrvijay K Chauhan vs Bank Of India on 5 May, 2014

Central Information Commission

Mrvijay K Chauhan vs Bank Of India on 5 May, 2014
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No. CIC/VS/A/2013/000534/SH
Right to Information Act−2005−Under Section (19)

Date of hearing : 5th May 2014

Date of decision : 5th May 2014

Name of the Appellant : Shri Vijay K Chauhan,

2A, Sun & Sea Apts, C H S Ltd., Near Royal
Lane, Juhutara Rd., Santacruz (West),
Mumbai − 400 049

Name of the Public Authority : Central Public Information Officer,

Bank of India, Head Office, Legal Dept. St
House, Third Floor, C−5, G Block, Bandra
Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), P B No.
8135, Mumbai − 400 051

The Appellant was present at the NIC Studio, Mumbai.

On behalf of the Respondents, the following were present at th

Mumbai.

1. Shri Hari K. G., Sr. Manager (Legal).

2. Shri Desh Pandey, Chief Manager.

I n f o r m a t i o n C o m m i s s i o n e r : S h r i S h a r a t S a b h a r w a l
This matter pertains to an RTI application dated 27.6.2012 filed by the Appellant,
seeking information on six points regarding action taken on a complaint filed by him on
18.6.2012 and some related issues. The CPIO responded on 1.8.2012. Not satisfied with
the reply of the CPIO, the Appellant filed an appeal to the First Appellate Authority on
8.8.2012. In his order dated 8.9.2012, the FAA upheld the CPIO's reply. The Appellant
approached the CIC in second appeal on 12.10.2012.

2. We heard the submissions of the Appellant and the Respondents. The Appellant

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/122930508/ 1

 Mrvijay K Chauhan vs Bank Of India on 5 May, 2014

stated that his complaint dated 18.6.2012 was regarding an ATM fraud concerning an
account of his sister. He alleged that the fraud had taken place because of some actions
on the part of employees of the Respondent Bank. He further submitted that he had not been
provided correct and complete information and that the bank had not been
forthcoming in addressing the grievance of his sister. The Respondents, on the other
hand, submitted that the account of the Appellant's sister had been hacked and that on
the basis of a police complaint, the culprit had been nabbed and the matter was now
before a criminal court.

3. Having considered the records and the submissions made before us, we direct the
CPIO to provide information on the following to the Appellant, within thirty days of the
receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission:−

(i) Query No. 1 of the RTI application:− The CPIO should provide detailed information
regarding action taken on the complaint dated 18.6.2012 of the Appellant, from the
date of its receipt till the date of the reply of the CPIO
(1.8.2012), together with copies of the file notings, if any, made at each stage of
processing of this complaint in the Respondent Bank.

(ii) Query No. 3 of the RTI application :− The CPIO should furnish a copy of the
bank norms sought by the Appellant in this query. In case there are no such
specific norms, the CPIO should convey this in writing to the Appellant.

4. With the above directions and observations, the appeal is disposed of.

5. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.

S d / − ( S h a r a t S a b h a r w a l ) I n f o r m a t i o n C o m m i s s i o n e r
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application
and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.

(Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/122930508/ 2