Jump to content
News Ticker
  • NPAs under PM Modi's Mudra scheme jumped 126% in FY19
  • shows RTI
  • RTI query reveals banking frauds of ₹ 2.05 Trillion reported in the last 11 years
  • 509 per cent rise in cases under child labour law: Study
  • The Central Information Commission has allowed disclosure of file notings on the mercy petition of a rape and murder convict, rejecting the government's contention that the records cannot be disclosed as these are privileged documents under Article 74(2) of the Constitution.
  • Electoral bonds worth over ₹5,800 crore were bought by donors to fund political parties between March 1, 2018 and May 10, 2019, a Right to Information reply has said.
  • Don't pay 500/- for answer sheet now- Supreme Court says if Answer sheet is asked under RTI, RTI Fees will be governed
Pulivarthi Narasimhulu

Nationalised Banks playing double game in disclosure of information

Recommended Posts

Pulivarthi Narasimhulu

According to the data released by the Reserve Bank of India, Rs.1188 crore lying unclaimed with Indian Banks in 1.92 crore inactive/dormant accounts as on Dec, 2008. As per the guidelines issued by RBI vide No.DBOD.No.Leg.BC.34/09.07.005/2008-09, dated August 22, 2008, all scheduled banks should make an annual review of accounts in whcih there are no operations for more than one year and approach the customers in writing and ascertain the reasons for non-operation. If the letters are un-delivered banks may immediately be put on enquiry to find out the whereabouts of the customers or their legal heirs in case they are deceased. But banks are not complied with these guidelines. The customers mainly poor, middle class and illeterate's amounts are lying with banks as unclaimed even though they need every rupee for their livelihood. With a motto of that the amount should be either with bank as an "operative" or as cash in the pockets of customers, I have submitted an application requesting CPIO, Andhra Bank,Arundelpet Branch to furnsih the name and address and account no.s of the customers whose amounts are lying as "Un-claimed" for the last 3 years in S.B accounts i.e., accounts not in operation only duly knowing that the information will not be disclosed by the banks under shelter 8 (1) (e) & (j). The CPIO and A.A replied accordingly.

 

Now my contension is that the banks are appointing outside persons as "Recovery Agents" (with the approval of RBI) paying commission for debts recovery from the customers who are due to the bank by giving full particulars of the customers who have taken loans and credit cards from banks i.e., they are disclosing the information of their customers duly violating the rules of the bank "personal information can't be reveal to others". In such a case, my opinion is that the value of cash is same and one whether it belongs to either bank or customer. But the banks are planned to get benefit with the money of the innocent customers by keeping with them as un-claimed deposits. The banks are playing double game in disclosure of information i.e., disclosing information to Recovery Agents and denying the same to others which is not justified.

 

In the above case, Iam going to prefer 2nd appeal to CIC. As the CIC had given decisions in favour of banks in so many cases, my case will also be decided accordingly. But I have to put new aspects to peruse by the CIC as mentined above.

 

Please advice me how to submit 2nd appeal with additional information to the CIC which was not submitted by others previously so as to expose the double game of the banks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karira

You yourself have mentioned one very good argument in your post itself:

 

If Banks can disclose Loan and loanee details to recovery agents, they are already allowing disclosure. So why can't they do the same in the other case ?

 

The following thread will also be helpful to you:

 

http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/6788-my-little-success-story-rbi.html?highlight=rbi+bank

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rajub

Dear Pulivarthi Narasimhulu,

 

Your argument vis - a - vis recovery agent is a good argument.

 

I would suggest you file another RTI seeking

 

(1) total no. of recovery agents appointed by the bank along with the dates of appointment and the tenure of each agent.

 

(2) amount of money recovered through agents

 

(3) type of information supplied to the agents for recovery purpose. etc.

 

Take care you are not seeking any name or other details of either any customer or recovery agent of the bank so that bank cannot deny the info.

 

Use this info in the second appeal you have filed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pulivarthi Narasimhulu
You yourself have mentioned one very good argument in your post itself:

 

If Banks can disclose Loan and loanee details to recovery agents, they are already allowing disclosure. So why can't they do the same in the other case ?

 

The following thread will also be helpful to you:

 

http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/6788-my-little-success-story-rbi.html?highlight=rbi+bank

Thanks to Sri karira for immediate responding. Can I prefer 2nd appeal on my argument ? I categorically mentioned in the 1st appeal stating that the information sought for is in the public interest i.e., by getting the information from the bank, the volunteers of our VESTAL( NGO) will search the customers and arrange either to continue operation of the account or wilthdraw the amount duly closing the account. But no consideration by the A.A. Please help to go ahead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pulivarthi Narasimhulu
Dear Pulivarthi Narasimhulu,

 

Your argument vis - a - vis recovery agent is a good argument.

 

I would suggest you file another RTI seeking

 

(1) total no. of recovery agents appointed by the bank along with the dates of appointment and the tenure of each agent.

 

(2) amount of money recovered through agents

 

(3) type of information supplied to the agents for recovery purpose. etc.

 

Take care you are not seeking any name or other details of either any customer or recovery agent of the bank so that bank cannot deny the info.

 

Use this info in the second appeal you have filed.

Thanks for immediate response. I will file application immediately and after receipt of information from the bank, I will prefer 2nd appeal quoting the information received.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pulivarthi Narasimhulu
Dear Pulivarthi Narasimhulu,

 

Your argument vis - a - vis recovery agent is a good argument.

 

I would suggest you file another RTI seeking

 

(1) total no. of recovery agents appointed by the bank along with the dates of appointment and the tenure of each agent.

 

(2) amount of money recovered through agents

 

(3) type of information supplied to the agents for recovery purpose. etc.

 

Take care you are not seeking any name or other details of either any customer or recovery agent of the bank so that bank cannot deny the info.

 

Use this info in the second appeal you have filed.

Thanks for immediate response. I will file application immediately and after receipt of information from the bank, I will prefer 2nd appeal quoting the information received.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karira

You can go ahead and file second appeal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Similar Content

    • Shrawan
      By Shrawan
      Central Information Commission



      Decision No. 297/IC(A)/2006
      F. No. CIC/MA/A/2006/00663
      Dated, the 21st September, 2006



      Name of the Appellant : Shri S. Gangaiah Nayakar, 3/488, Rajapalayam Salai, T. N.C.Alangulam, District - Virudhunagar-626127
      Name of the Public Authority: Indian Overseas Bank, Customers Service Department, Central office, 763,Anna Salai, Channai-600 002. DECISION
       
      The appellant had sought certain information, which was largely furnished to him.
      The CPIO however denied the information relating to the details of loan accounts of another person and other documents submitted by him. The CPIO contented that the information sought is related to personal information, which is exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of the Act. The appellate authority upheld the decision of the CPIO.
      There is no denial of information to the appellant. The Banks are expected to maintain confidentiality of the accounts of its customers and that the documents submitted by its customers do not fall under public domain. Hence, exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of the Act.
      The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
      Sd/-
      (Prof M. M. Ansari)
      Information Commissioner
      Download the decision from Download Segment



    • Shrawan
      By Shrawan
      RBI sought exclusion from RTI: Govt. doesnot finance us!
       
      The Right to Information Act (RTI) covers all bodies owned, controlled or ‘substantially financed’ by the government. Which should be clear enough, but the Reserve Bank of India didn’t think so. It sought exclusion from the scanner, contending, “We do not come under the Act, as we are the sole financier of the government; the government does not finance us!”
       
      In response, the Central Information Commission has firmly put the Bank in its place by reminding it that RBI was constituted by an Act of Parliament and was therefore squarely within the law’s purview.
       
       

Announcements

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy