Information about late father’s Bank account - PIO: It was settled in favour of the nominee and daughter-in-law of the deceased account holder; Details are exempted u/s 8(1)(j) - CIC: Appropriate reply was given by the PIO as per the provisions of RTI Act

O R D E R

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.06.2022 seeking information on the following points:

(i) “Saving Bank A/c (A/c not known) of his deceased father Late Shri Gulwant Singh statement 2017-18 to 2019-20.

(ii) Saving bank, A/c – As on 30.09.2019. Balance amount and to whom it is transferred (Nominee or any other).

(iii) FDR’s recurring A/c as on 30.09.2019 and to whom it is transferred net amount (Nominee or any other).

(iv) Demat A/c – before or after the death of my father to whom it is transferred full statement.

(v) Cash-Credit A/c & personal A/c.”

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 11.07.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-

“The sought information is exempted from disclosure u/s 8(1) (d) & (j) of the RTI Act, 2005.”

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 22.07.2022 alleging that the reply given by the CPIO was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 19.08.2022 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.

4. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 31.12.2022.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Ratnesh Sharma, Deputy General Manager and CPIO, attended the hearing through video conference.

6. The appellant inter alia submitted that the respondent had not provided him with the requisite information of his deceased father’s account.

7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the appellant had sought information pertaining to a deceased customer of their bank, wherein the appellant was neither a joint-account holder nor the nominee in the account. The CPIO further stated that the account of Late Shri Gulwant Singh was settled on 30.10.2019 in favour of the nominee and daughter-in-law of the deceased account holder. Therefore, the details thereof, were exempted under the provisions of the Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act.

8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that appropriate reply was given by the CPIO, as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Further, the respondent also clarified that the averred account had been settled on 30.10.2019 and the appellant was neither a joint-account holder nor the nominee in the account. That being so, the Commission finds no scope for further intervention in the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

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

Sd/-

ANANDI RAMALINGAM

Information Commissioner

Citation: Surjeet Singh v. IDBI Bank Limited, CIC/IDBIL/A/2023/100960; Date of Decision: 29.04.2024