Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh <email@example.com>
Matter is concerned with middle aged lady belonging to weaker section from whose account Rs.2000,00 was illegally deducted and when video footage of transaction was sought, was denied on flimsy ground.
Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh <firstname.lastname@example.org>
5 January 2018 at 01:43
To: email@example.com, Anjali Anand Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, pmosb <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, supremecourt <firstname.lastname@example.org>, urgent-action <email@example.com>
An application under subsection 3 of section 19 of Right to Information Act 2005 to seek information in order to seek justice for a middle-aged lady belonging to weaker section who is sufferer because from her account Rs.2000,00 was illegally deducted and when video footage of transaction was sought under Right to Information Act 2005 she was denied by taking the provisions of Right to Information Act under teeth ipso facto obvious from the working style of concerned staffs of the department of bank concerned.
Chief Information Commissioner
The Central Information Commission,
August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi – 110066
Appellant- Shakuntala Devi Mobile number-8738895762 Mohalla-Shivala Mahanth , Post-Putalighar , District-Mirzapur , Pin Code-231001 Uttar Pradesh ,India.
1-CPIO Details of CPIO:- Raja Sekhar C H, Deputy General Manager and Central Public Information Officer, Public Authority-Vijaya Bank.
2-First appellate authority Appellate Authority details-Ajay K Khurana, General Manager Public Authority-Vijaya Bank, Head Office, 41/2 M. G. Road, Bangalore-560001.
Prayer-CPlO first procrastinated by moving beyond the extent of the limit and then replied cryptically R.T.I. Application dated 28/08/2017 through its communication dated 22/11/2017 sent through e-mail on 24/11/2017 as-
ऋण विभाग – विधि अनुभाग Credit Dept. – Legal Section
विजया बैंक | प्रधान कार्यालय | 41/2, एम जी रोड| बेंगलूर, कर्नाटक – 560001|
VIJAYA BANK| HEAD OFFICE| 41/2, M G ROAD| BANGALORE, KARNATAKA-560001|
Attached documents with aforementioned e-mail are also attached to this representation of the appellant.
Hon’ble Sir CPIO replied as-
1-Please provide the Video footage of transaction as sought by your applicant through the grievance but concerned staffs denied on flimsy ground. The grievance is attached to this communique.
No reply was made by CPIO in regard to this point. Which implies that CPIO didn’t think it appropriate to touch this point of sought information.
2-Please provide the duration till then you preserve your documents in order to provide information seekers under R.T.I. Act 2005.
Video footage of 90 days. Why CPIO and others staffs procrastinated when he was apprised of the fact that they have to preserve the video for only three months? Your applicant was seeking the video from the beginning just after one month after the exchange of communication when fact came to the knowledge that ATM of Vijaya Bank was not working properly on that day ipso facto obvious from the made available report.
3-Please provide the process how you provide the video clip of transaction free of cost in the case of failure of the transaction and consumer suffered loss.
Bank provides the video clip of transaction free of cost only on the direction statutory authorities, such as the court of competent jurisdiction, CBI, Police, RBI e.t.c. Here this question arises that when R.B.I. had directed all nationalized and private banks to safeguard the transaction of demonetization period, how can Vijaya Bank claim to destroy its Video footage after 90 days and on the same ground denying to provide the sought information.
The stand of CPIO is cryptic and wants to shield wrongdoing of staffs of public authority Vijaya Bank which is illegal and took under teeth the provisions of Right to Information Act 2005.
Hence action must be taken against CPIO under subsection 1 of section 20 of Right to Information Act 2005 otherwise it would be setup bad precedent for others and many others will also make the mockery of Right to Information Act 2005.
Since First appellate authority overlooked the serious matter by undermining the authority of the august act so he must be subjected to disciplinary proceedings under section 20 of the Right to Information Act 2005.
With great respect to revered Sir, your applicant invites the kind attention of the Hon’ble Sir to the following submissions as follows.
1-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that please take a glance of action report dated 27 Jun 2017 as-With reference to the Grievance of Shakuntala, we wish to inform you that the Bank has raised the claim for reversal of amount. But, ATM acquiring bank has rejected the claim stating transaction as successful. The same was conveyed to the complainant. Further, on receipt of her request through Ministry, Bank has been requesting the acquiring bank to provide CCTV footage. But, there was no response from them.
Since grievance closed showing no ray of hope to the aggrieved lady.
The ground of seeking CC TV footage- 1: Five successive failed transaction of A.T.M. Machine after impugned transaction made by the son of the aggrieved lady.
2-Whether software report is credible proof of hardware transaction even when the server was too much down because of the heavy load?
3-During the internet transactions, on one side transaction remains successful and money is deducted from the account but counter server shows non-receipt of money even when the software information used to exchange but here pumping out of money is hardware act which is monitored by CCTV camera installed for the purpose so Video footage is must.
2–It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that Undoubtedly matter is concerned with the middle-aged aggrieved lady belonging to weaker section. Why doesn’t Vijaya Bank want to provide video footage to aggrieved if staffs of banking institution are innocent? Here this question arises that whether the money came out from ATM during the transaction made by ward of aggrieved if not how it could be considered that transaction remained successful? Whether customer satisfaction has no importance for the Vijaya bank OR such practice quite common with the customers of other banks?
3–It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that
4–It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that
Online RTI Request Form Details
RTI Request Details :-
Personal Details of RTI Applicant:-
Request Details :-
5–It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that
6–It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that
Online RTI Appeal Form Details
RTI Appeal Details :-
Personal Details of Appellant:-
Appeal Details :-
This is a humble request of your applicant to you Hon’ble Sir that It can never be justified to overlook the rights of the citizenry by delivering services in an arbitrary manner by floating all set up norms. This is sheer mismanagement which is encouraging wrongdoers to reap the benefit of loopholes in the system and depriving poor citizens of the right to justice. Therefore it is need of the hour to take concrete steps in order to curb grown anarchy in the system. For this, your applicant shall ever pray you, Hon’ble Sir.
Date-05/01/2018 Shakuntala Devi Mobile number-8738895762 Mohalla-Shivala Mahanth, Post-Putalighar, District-Mirzapur, Pin Code-231001 Uttar Pradesh, India.