CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000030/SG/14081
Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000030/SG
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. P.D. Swami
319, Manav Apartments,
Plot No.3, Sector-9,
Rohini, Delhi- 110085
Respondent : Mr. Sulakhan Singh
CPIO & DZM,
Bank of India, Zonal Office,
New Delhi Zone,
Jeevan Bharti Building,
Tower-1, Level-5, 124, Connaught Circus,
New Delhi-110001
RTI application filed on : 20/07/2010
PIO replied on : 21/08/2010
First Appeal filed on : 06/09/2010
First Appellate Authority order on : no order passed
Second Appeal received on : 22/12/2010
SL. Information sought Reply of PIO
1. Whether it is a fact that the Applicant vide his letter It is difficult to confirm whether the applicant has
dated 2707/2006 had informed the Bank about the visited the Branch or not as stated in your
death of his mother Late Smt Gyarsi Devi on application because so many customers visit our
11.07.2006 operating her Locker No. 485, inter alia, branch. However, we confirm that the death
enclosing therewith a copy of the death certificate certificate dated 19.7.2006 of late Smt. Gyarsi
issued by the NDMC; seeking pendency of any Devi is available on Branch Record.
outstanding up-paid dues towards ‘locker charges’ and
asking for the formalities to be observed by the legal
heirs to get the same opened before surrendering the
same?
2. Whether it is correct that when finding no response No, it is not true. As and when the customers or
from the Bank for almost two-and-a-half years. The their legal heirs approach the Branch, the Branch
Applicant had personally met the Chief Manager of the Manager is prompt in providing the services.
Bank somewhere in early, 2008, he was advised to When the applicant contacted/approached the
prefer the requisite claim vide Appendix XX branch, the then Chief Manager immediately
(Paragraph 180.2(b)), a specimen whereof was also advised the applicant the procedure to be followed
given to him, which he did submit, duly completed and and provided the applicant the requisite claim
signed, vide his letter dated 15.12.2008? form for submission of his claim.
3. Whether it is again true that finding a studied silence Yes, it is a part of the procedure and therefore the
on the part of the Bank, the Applicant again met the same was advised to the applicant.
Chief Manager towards the fag end of December,
2008, when he was advised to submit copies of (a)
Identity Card issued by the Election Commission of
India in favor of the Applicant; (b) PAN Card No.
AHLPS 8539-E in favor of Sh. Mithiesh Sharma; (c)
Identity Card issued by the Election Commission of
India favoring Smt. Geeta Bhardwaj; (d) Identity Card
issued by the Election Commission of India favoring
Smt. Sita Sharma, and (e) Identity Card issued by the
Election Commission of India favoring Smt. Urmila
Sharma, which were tendered by the Applicant vide his
Page 1 of 4
letter dated 05.02.2009, along with another copy of his
mother’s death certificate?
4. Is it a fact that in keeping its reputation not to It is totally denied that the Bank will not respond
communicate with its client, including his/her legal to the customer’s requirements. However, it is
heir(s), despite so much of writing, another confirmed that the applicant was advised to
communication dated 17.12.2009 was meanwhile complete the required formalities before
written to the Bank by the Applicant, which is reported 29.1.2010 and remain present on 29.1.2010 at the
to have been received by the former on 21.12.2009, time of drill opening the locker.
and eventually, letter No. EOK/Locker/485-A. dated
21.01.2010 emanated from that end informing the
Applicant that M/s Godrej would drill the locker on
29.12.2010 — WRONGLY WENTIONED INSTEAD
OF 29.01.2010 — at 10.30 am and & also advising him
to complete the required formalities before the said
date and remain present on 29.01 .2010?
5. Is it not a fact that the Applicant deposited the requisite Yes, the requisite fee was deposited, the locker
amount with the Bank for preparation of a duplicate was broken open and an inventory was prepared
key and resultantly, the locker was broken open on on 29.01.2010 itself.
29.01.2010? when, among others, the Chief Manager
as also the Applicant were present and an inventory of
the items kept in the locker was prepared?
6. Is it not true that the jewellery kept in Locker No. 485 Yes, the jewellery was weighed and valued in the
was weighed and evaluated in the Chamber of the branch.
Chief Manager on 08.02.2010 by M/S M.B. Jewellers,
Jewellers & Commission Agents, 1234, Vaidwara,
Maliwara, Delhi at an aggregate value of old gold and
old silver ornaments at Rs. 3,90,600 as per copies
thereof given to the Bank as also the Applicant?
7. Can it be denied that on being advised by the Bank to Yes, the applicant had submitted the requisite
submit two CBD — 23 Rev. 2006 forms, the Applicant documents,
submitted the same from the following vide his letter
dated 12.03.2010?
(i) Shri K. G. S. Mani
(with)
(a) Photo-copy of PAN No. AFXPS4234E.
(b) Photo-copy of Driving Licence No.
P03032002308926.
(c) Photo-copy of Income Tax Return for the
Assessment year 2009 -- 10
-- Annual income was shown at Rs. 4--5 lac.
(ii) Smt. Kaushalya Bansal
(with)
(a) Photo-copy of Income Tax Return for the
Assessment Year 2009-10 along with acknowledgment
receipt dated 15.02.2010.
(b) Photo-copy of Property Tax Challan dated
22.06.2009 issued by the MCD qua Property No. M
-138, Greater Kailash — II, New Delhi for the year
2009-2010.
(c) Photo-copy of PAN No. AAIPB5789K.
(d) Photo-copy of Identity Card No. NEC1068113
issued by the Election Commission of India.
(e) Photo-copy of Sale Deed dated 15.11.1977 for Rs.
1,42000 towards consideration amount paid for a free-
hold parcel of land admeasuring 400 square yards —
present value whereof was shown as Rs. 8.00 crore.
8. Is it also true that subsequently on being advised by the Yes the applicant had submitted the Annexure II
Bank to submit Annexure — II & III, along with & Ill vide his letter dated 29.3.2010.
another copy of death certificate of his mother, the
Applicant submitted the same in the Bank vide his
letter dated 29.03.2010?
Page 2 of 4
9. Why and under what extraneous circumstances, the It is not discarding of the documentary evidence
Bank discarded the documentary evidence, which it of the worth of the Guarantors. It is the discretion
had demanded for itself earlier from time to time from exercised by the competent authority to ask from
the Applicant for almost three years and for the claimants of the legal heirs of deceased locker
procurement whereof, he had to take unnecessary holder the letters of Administration/Succession
obligation of Shri K. G. S. Mani and Smt. Kaushalya certificate issued by the competent court for
Bansal in obtaining very personal and confidential complying proper procedure for handing over the
details of their movable and immovable properties, contents of the locker to the claimants or to the
besides putting in lot of labour and inconvenience in legal heirs of the deceased locker holder. In this
collecting and compilation of the various formalities matter, one of the legal heirs of late Smt. Gyarsi
suggested by the Bank occasionally, especially when Devi i.e. Smt. Mithlesh Sharma died on
the succession certificate was eventually to be insisted 12.4.2009.Therefore,the legal heirs of deceased
upon as communicated vide letter No. EOK/SDV/40, Smt. Mithlesh Sharma also were required to be
dated 21.05.2010? ascertained before handing over the contents of
the locker. Under these circumstances only the
competent authority has asked for the letter of
administration/ succession certificate from the
applicant.
10. What are the reasons due to which the The above stated reasons in para 9 are applicable
recommendations of the Chief Manager, Bank of India, here also.
East of Kailash Branch, New Delhi were turned down
and by whom? Photo-copies of the entire noting from
the beginning to the end culminating in turning down
of the proposal by the so-called higher authorities
should be also made available to the Applicant.
11. Can it be denied that a policy does exist whereby the It is true that there is a delegation of monetary
Bank has been allowing refund of the contents of the limit for taking the decisions. As per the extant
locker to the legal heirs of the deceased up to a certain delegation of powers up to the estimated value of
monetary limit? What are those parameters? A copy of contents of Rs.2 lacs the Chief Manager can take
the said guidelines on the subject be also made the decision and above that scale V officer (in
available to the Applicant. Branch or Zonal Office) is the Competent
Authority to authorize delivery of contents of Safe
deposit lockers against Indemnity in cases where
legal representation has not been obtained to the
rightful heirs of a deceased renter. As regards the
furnishing of the circular or the Bank’s guidelines
in this respect are concerned, the same cannot be
given to the applicant as the said circulars are for
internal use/guidance only and such circulars
contain certain other guidelines related to other
aspects. Hence, the information partly falls under
the exemptions provided under Section 8(1) (d) of
the RTI Act i.e. information held in commercial
confidence. Further, when we have given
information about the extant delegation of
monetary limit, there is no need for furnishing
bank’s internal circulars.
12. In how many cases and up to what monetary limit the The requested information cannot be provided to
Bank of India has allowed such a refund in the past the applicant as the information cannot be
since 2006 — 07 till date? Complete details thereof be generated without disproportionately diverting the
furnished. resources of the bank. However, we confirm that
there is no such case in East of Kailash Branch
during this period.
13. Is it also correct that the Bank had telephonically Yes, it is correct.
advised the Applicant to deposit a sum between Rs.1,
000-2,000 in SB Account No. 602110100008130 of the
deceased towards locker charges and, accordingly, a
sum of Rs. 2,000 was deposited therein on 14.07.2010?
14. How is that having taken surety of more than Rs. eight Since, it is the discretion of the competent
crore from the Applicant vide its CBD –23 Rev. 2006 authority for asking for the letter of
forms, what are the legal hurdles in releasing the administration/legal representation, the monetary
Page 3 of 4
contents of the locker, which are only worth about worth of the surety will not come in to picture.
Rs.3,90,600?
15. How and under what circumstances, such a bizarre It will be appreciated that competent authority in
behaviour by the Bank towards its customers be order to arrive at judicious decision, has asked for
justified? legal representation from Competent Court of law,
for release of the contents of SDV to legal
heirs/Legal claimants.
16. What is complete address of the Hon’ble Ombudsman The complete address of the Hon’ble Ombudsman
before which this matter could be agitated? is given below:
Banking Ombudsman,
2nd Floor, RBI Building,
6, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001
Phone No.011-23710882
Grounds for the First Appeal
Information not provided within the 30 day time period and was unsatisfactory.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
No order passed.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. P.D. Swami;
Respondent: Mr. Sulakhan Singh, CPIO & DZM; Mr. S. S. Saroha, Sr. Manager;
The information available on the records has been provided to the Appellant. The Appellant has a
grievance that the respondents did not inform him earlier that they could not be able to give him the
contents of the locker. The respondent has stated that if the Appellant approaches the bank again, they
would try and putup the matter to their higher authorities to see if his grievance can be resolved.
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
16 August 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (kh)
Page 4 of 4