Manner of sorting out grievances of customers by the bank - PIO: appellant has sought clarifications and explanations which is not information u/s 2(f) - CIC: provide the mechanism for grievance redressal prevailing in context of the RTI application
13 Dec, 2013O R D E R
RTI application
1. The appellant, referring to a complaint dated 15.12.2011 from one Mr. Paresh Shah, filed an RTI application with the PIO on 19.6.2012 seeking clarifications on the bank’s reply dated 23.3.2012. In all, clarifications/information have been sought on 5 points, some points having several subpoints. The CPIO disposed of the RTI application on 25.7.2012 stating that a similar RTI application filed in the Head Office on 15.6.2012 had been withdrawn by him on 17.6.2012 and that the clarifications sought do not come under the definition of ‘information’ under section 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of the RTI Act.
2. Not satisfied with the reply of the PIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 28.7.2012 with the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA upheld the reply of PIO on 10.9.2012. The appellant approached the Commission on 6.12.2012 in second appeal.
Hearing
3. The respondent stated that the appellant, vide his RTI application of 19.6.2012, was seeking clarifications and explanations about the manner of sorting out the grievances of customers by the bank. The respondent said that since the queries raised did not seek any information under section 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of the RTI Act, the appellant was informed accordingly on 25.7.2012. The respondent stated the reply of CPIO was also upheld by the FAA on 10.9.2012.
4. The respondent also stated that a similar RTI application filed by the appellant with the Head Office on 15.6.2012, was later withdrawn by him on 7.7.2012.
5. During the hearing, the respondent was asked whether there is any grievance redressal mechanism prevailing in the bank to deal with the grievances of the customers about the working of the bank. The respondent confirmed that there exists a grievance redressal mechanism in the bank.
Decision
6. The respondent is directed to provide information, within 30 days of this order, to the appellant on the grievance redressal mechanism in context of the RTI application. The appeal is disposed of. Copy of the decision be given free of cost to both the parties.
(Vijai Sharma)
Information Commission
Citation: Shri Harshadkumar Chimanlal Gandhi v. Bank of Baroda in Decision No. CIC/VS/A/2013/000189/05506