Central Information Commission
Mrs.Asha S. Murthy vs Indian Bank on 20 September, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2010/000625/SG/14703
Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2010/000625/SG
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. R. Selvaperumal,
No 2 Parimalam Nagar
Kalpalayam
Chennai 99
Respondent : Mr. Christopher
PIO & Deputy General Manager,
Syndicate Bank, Regional Office
Leelavathi Building, 69, Armenian street,
Chennai 600001
RTI application filed on : 19/04/2010
PIO replied on : 08/06/2010
First Appeal filed on : 28/05/2010
Second Appeal received on : 01/02/2010
The appellant wants to have information regarding his transaction dated 31.12.2008
Page 1 of 3
No. Information sought Reply of PIO
1. Why was there an undue delay in update of this Since the transactions took place during offline as
transaction by more than 6 days? per reasons stated for reply to query no 3, there was
delay in debiting the amount to SB a/c
6007.201.0072360
2. Please state whether this transaction is (a)The transaction of Rs 7000 is not an erroneous
(a) an error in any form? If so please transaction.
specify the type of error. (b) there is no application error
(b) An application error? (c) no mistake was made by the banking system.
(c) A mistake made by the banking (d) it is not a fraudulent entry.
system?
(d) A fraudulent entry made?
3. How is it possible to debit Rs 7000 from the (a) & (b) between 16.55 and 18.04 hrs on
account on 01.01.2009 while the balance was 01.01.2009, the switch was offline for about 42
only Rs 2131.38? minutes. Hence offline transactions done during
(a) While the system was not in offline this period were pending for debit to Host. Host
mode? came up at 18.04 hours and these offline
(b) While there was no sufficient funds and transactions alongwith Online transactions were
there was no loss of connectivity due to sent to the host for debit. This particular transaction
any reasons including heavy volume of sent to Host as online transaction was not replied by
transactions? the Host within the set time limit. Hence for this
transaction the ATM switch has given an Offline
authorization. Balance in your account was Rs
7433.07 on 30.12.2008 and the same was uploaded
to the switch at 07:39:16 hours on 31.12.2008,
which continued on 1.1.2009 in the switch. In your
account there was a system generated debit of Rs
5267.89 towards your loan a/c and a debit of Rs 34
towards minimum balance charges. Due to various
internal works like interest application etc the
balance at ATM switch could not be uploaded on
1.1.2009 till the time of your withdrawl. The
withdrawl of Rs 7000 was authorized on 1.1.2009
at 18:14 hours based on the balance of Rs 7433.07,
uploaded on 31.12.2008 at 07:39:16 hours. Since
the transaction was treated as an offline transaction
done at our Peravallur ATM, transaction amount of
Rs 7000 was debited to your SB a/c
How was it possible for the computer system to (a), (b), (c) kindly refer our reply for item no 3 and
4. hide this particular entry alone for more than 6 2(d) given above.
days and suddenly how it spontaneously
surfaced to its memory after 6 days? Please give (d) yes, it is a delayed manual entry.
reasons? (e) delayed entries occur at times.
Also specify : (f) records/data not available.
(a) how the delayed entry happened?
(b) How is this entry possible?
(c) Was it a fraudulent entry?
(d) Is it a delayed manual entry?
(e) Do such occurrences occur in your
banking system frequently?
(f) How many cases have been reported so
far?
Whether the above transaction details are Refer our DIT, Corporate Office letter no.
5. available in JP log and switch log reports? 2030/CO:DIT/RTI/MC-137/SWA dated 15th may
2010 - as per JP, the transaction is Page 2 of 3 on
successful
1.1.2009.
6. Was it a successful transaction in every aspect? It is a successful transaction in every respect.
Grounds for the First Appeal
No information received.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
FAA ordered the PIO to furnish the information within 10 days.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Ambiguous reply by the PIO and inspection of ATMs not allowed.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. R. Selvaperumal on video conference from NIC-Chennai;
Respondent: Mr. Christopher, PIO & Deputy General Manager on video conference from NIC-Chennai;
The PIO has provided information available on the records. The appellant appears to have a
grievance for this he shod approach an appropriate forum.
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
The information available on the records has been provided.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
20 September 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(NS)
Page 3 of 3