Information regarding foreclosure of two housing loan accounts in the name of Payal Jain & Premlata Jain were denied u/s 8(1)(d),(j) & 11 of the RTI Act - CIC: Denial upheld; both the complaints filed on the basis of same RTI application rejected
26 Oct, 2015ORDER
1. The complainant submitted RTI application dated August 21, 2014 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), PNB Housing Finance Limited, New Delhi; seeking information regarding foreclosure of two housing loan accounts in the name of Payal Jain and Premlata Jain etc.; through a total of 2 points.
2. Vide letter dated August 30, 2014; the CPIO denied the information u/s 8(1)(d),(j) & 11 of the RTI Act, 2005.
3. Dissatisfied with the response of the public authority, the complainant preferred the present complaint before the Commission.
4. The matter was heard by the Commission. The complainant submitted that he had sought information regarding handing over of property documents to the owners after the submission of foreclosure amount in the branch of PNBHFL but the information was denied to him u/s 8(1)(d),(j) & 11 of the RTI Act, 2005 which was uncalled for as he was an affected party. The appellant was not able to clarify during the hearing as to how he becomes the affected party when he was neither the borrower of the housing loan nor a customer.
5. The respondents submitted that above mentioned two ladies have taken housing loan from their Raipur Branch and these two loans had been irregular for long and one Shri Ashish Jain who was builder in this case had been depositing the EMI in these loan accounts. The company received a foreclosure request with reference to these two accounts and a foreclosure statement was provided to the two borrowers on 21.7.2014 by their Raipur branch but soon after, on 24.7.2014 these requests had been withdrawn by the borrowers. They stated that the said two accounts were still alive and not foreclosed. They submitted that the appellant was third party to this information sought by him and they could not provide it him as it was a matter of dispute between the 3rd party and the builder concerned. They had also informed the appellant about their inability to provide the information sought by the appellant to him vide their letters dated 30.8.2014 and 18.10.2014.
5. The Commission accepts the submissions made by the respondents and upholds their decision. The appellant has a grievance for which he may like to approach the appropriate forum. The complaint is disposed of.
1. The complainant submitted RTI application dated August 21, 2014 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), PNB Housing Finance Limited, New Delhi; seeking information regarding two housing loan accounts in the name of Payal Jain and Premlata Jain like the statement of accounts etc.; through a total of 3 points.
2. Vide letter dated August 30, 2014; the CPIO denied the information u/s 8(1)(d),(j) & 11 of the RTI Act, 2005.
3. Dissatisfied with the response of the public authority, the complainant preferred the present complaint before the Commission.
4. The matter was heard by the Commission. Submissions made by both the parties are same as discussed in the case no.
5. In view of this, the Commission upholds the decision of the respondents; however, the Commission directs the respondents to provide a copy of all the replies sent to the appellant previously again to the appellant within 7 days of the receipt of this decision. The complaint is disposed of.
6. This order disposes of both the complaint nos. CIC/MP/C/2014/000301 & CIC/MP/C/2015/900011 as both the complaints have been filed on the basis of same RTI application.
(Manjula Prasher)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Manish Ojha v. PNB Housing Finance Limited in Complaint No.CIC/MP/C/2014/900342
CIC/MP/C/2014/000301 CIC/MP/C/2015/900011