- 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
Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'atm'.
Found 9 results
In order to withdraw some urgent money, I made one withdrawal from ATM on 18-10-2009. The first transaction failed and so I made a second try. This time, I got Rs.1000/- as demanded. The security person commented, “Your account shall be credited next day for this failed transaction.” But as a safety measure, I lodged an internet complaint for this failed transaction, took a “Print Screen” shots for complaint as well as receipt. Both this “Print Screen” shots helped me in all this failed transaction. On 1-12-09 while my pass book was updated I found there is no credit for Rs. 1000/- for failed transaction and since I was in bank, I made enquiries and I was told to lodge a second complaint. Accordingly second complaint was lodged on that day. On 1-1-2010 while updating my pass book I noticed, there is still no credit. On enquiries, I was told it takes about a month or some time more. But still visit 3rd floor and check in ATM section. The matter was left there only. This is the first part of the story, second part started on 6-1-2010 evening when I was visiting RBI web page to find Singapore $ rate. I found a link for common persons, where in there were many notifications and my eye caught a notification dated 17-7-2009 for ATM reconciliation. I downloaded the pdf. The link to this page is: Reserve Bank of India On reading this pdf I was rather shocked! It had stated, if the complaint is not solved within 12 working days, I was to be given Rs. 100/- per day as compensation. On next day, i.e. on 7-1-10, I took the print out of this notification and visited my bank at around 2 PM and showed it to the branch manager. The effect was very surprising and he promised to look in the matter and my residence received a call from bank staff that my account has been credited with Rs. 1000/- at around 5 PM. The message was also kept to call bank next day. I had high-lighted the condition of Rs. 100/- per day with high light marker. The Manager, Chief Manager and staff member started pleading some of the member from the branch shall be punished and he (Chief Manager) shall look in the matter and find the way. There was no action on his part for other 10 or more days. Since this being a very major issue, in the mean time I contacted an advocate and asked if a public interest litigation can be filed in High Court and get the order for all banks to act on this rule and give the compensation. He confirmed that this can be done but there has to be some evidence from different banks as they are also not following this rule. Hence he dictated an application under RTI and asked me to visit 2 days later to collect print out. That day he refused to take the case on the ground of time and refused to give the draft also. I thought of trying it my self and made application to: 1) Bank of Maharashtra, as the H.O. was in Pune where I stay. 2) Bank of Baroda, their Regional Office. 3) Dena Bank, in there Regional Office. 4) ICICI as they have ‘n number of ATM centers. 5) IDBI bank Mumbai. 6) Bank of India, Mumbai as my bank. These banks were selected as test case and have no specific reason. A separate application to RBI was also made since it was referred in there letter that they are receiving many complaints. Questions asked to 6 banks were: 1) How many complaints were received for wrongfully debited on account of “failed ATM transactions”? 2) In how many days the wrongfully debited amount was credited to the account of customer? You may give the answer as min and max days taken. 3) Do you have any stipulated period policy to solve this type of complaint? 4) If so, what is the maximum period you have specified? 5) Do you reimburse any amount as compensation, for the delay caused in above period to the aggrieved customer? 6) If yes, what is the amount you reimburse to the aggrieved customer? And how it is calculated? 7) Do you have any system, to review this failed ATM transactions, and keep them to the Board of Directors, indicating inter alia, the quantum of compensation given to customer, reasons thereof, and action taken to avoid this delay? 8) If yes, supply me the copy of this report. In the letter to RBI the questions were asked giving the reference to the directives they have sent to banks, given on web page and are as: 1) How many complaints you received in connection of ATM failure in 2008? Give the details bank wise. 2) How many complaints you received for above reason in 2009? 3) How many complaints you have received after 17-7-2009? 4) What mechanism you have set to enforce the Payment and Settlement System Act 2007, (Act 51 of 2007)? (Section-18) 5) Is there any facility given on web site which gives the acknowledgement to the complaint via net? 6) If not why? I think answers from RBI are very funny and vague. The answer given by the Reserve Bank is as follows: 1) Information is not available with this department readily, since ATM related complaints are categorized along with credit / debit card complaints in our Complaint Tracking System. As per our records, we have received 17648 complaints relating to ATM cards, Debit cards and Credit cards during the year 2008-09. 2) – do - 3) – do – 5) The web site has no such provision 6) The information is not available with this dept. 4) Answer to my (4) was from different dept. and the answer is “For regulation of payment system, the bank lays down policies and issues directions under Section 18 of Payment and settlement systems act 2007 as and when necessary.” It also states I can appeal against this reply to so and so…. From the banks, the response is as below: 1) ICICI : We are not covered under TRI and referred CIC order dated 9-8-2007 2) IDBI : No of complaint-73700 and follows rules of RBI. Min-2 days max. 12 days, follows RBI guideline and pay 100/- p.d. Answer to Q-8 can not be given under sec. 8(1)(d) of RTI act. 3) Bank of Maharashtra : No. of complaint=40010 and follows RBI directions and “there was no such occasion of delay by card cell” Answer to Q-8 – Not applicable. 4) Bank of Baroda replied “as all information called for is maintained by corporate office and we are forwarding your application to them” 5) Dena Bank : One Branch Manager from nearer branch visited my house but house was locked and hence he kept a message requesting to call on his mobile. So far there is no reply from them so far. 6) Bank of India : There is no reply so far. I had sent one more RTI letter asking bank why my account was not credited with Rs.6500/- on 7-1-2010 along with Rs.1000/- and the account was credited 0n 25-2-2010 for Rs.6500/- The second letter was to separate Public Interest Litigation keep me away from one of beneficiary in the case. Now, I want your guidance in this case for archiving the goal on all India basis. I wish each and every one who is deprived from this compensation part should get the money. And to get it for them how do I precede with current status. Now on each and every move is important because millions and millions are involed in this case.
Hello, I wanted to file an RTI in the following two banks 1. Central bank of India 2. Corpration bank Q.1 where should I apply..... ... .. . My RTI requests subject is related to ATM cards issued under NPCL platform i.e. RUPAY debit card. banks do not offer rupay debit cards but as per RBI guidlines every indian nationalised bank must issue it. they have put on their website but no such facility is offered in actual. also I have found that Visa/Master card has certain service charges and huge amount of foreign exchange is shifted from india Rupay debit card: doesn't has any charges if any then very less as per Indian rupees but Visa/Master debit card charge according to US rate. I wanted to file an RTI Q.2 Requesting you to please help me formulate the correct questions that i should ask.
Hi Experts, My Name is Mahesh Gupta, currently living in delhi. I am facing a court case, and i have to proof that i was in delhi when the incident was happened. At the day of incident i was used my ATM Card in Canara Bank ATM, and my account is in INGVYSYA Bank. how can i get the CCTV footage of that transaction to proof my location ? please help me. waiting for you reply.
It is reliably learn that Though the ATM transaction is successful it is not recorded properly to customer's account. i.e. this time the customer account is not debited even if he has withdrawn money. Considering the transactions of ATM this type of case are also high and this transactions are of the reverse way where amount is NOT debited to customer accounts but dispense by machine and collected by customer. It is a Human nature not to speak of this and there are billions and trillions of rupees are in suspense accounts of banks. Bank share holders can check this figure and give me for use. It is also learn that failed transaction money is siphoned out under false claims launched on some non existent branches and are taken out. most of the Banks I have checked have "0" number branches and they also use service branches to report failed transactions plus non existent branches. ATM machines are not well equip through CCTV footage. This helps "SERVICE PROVIDERS" and hence less cash found in Cash Bin is misappropriated and not properly accounted. Service provider when contacted personally and shown one ATM balancing report they claimed this excess money is the money which machine has pushed in the bin i.e. rejected by machine and plus if not collected in time. Now as per RBI rule RBI has directed Banks not to pull money from delivery window till man collected it and hence there are less failed transactions. Even there are complaints that ATM dispense counterfeit notes even though there are good directions of RBI. Most of the Banks on ATM have only one i.e. face identifying camera and this makes difficult to catch service provider. I wish to work on this subjects one by one with the help of honourable members and I need points for starting first subject of members choice. As on June end there are 99218 ATM machine or points in operation. Now member point out which point should be taken first. By the way a news to our honourable members with the help from our full group I am happy to announce that I have filed a complaint against Bank of India for supply of False Affidavit / Cheating around 1100 person by nor paying compensation / creating false documents etc. etc. and process of FIR is in process and take time. On getting the FIR I will post success story with full cover-up. My hats off to JPS50; Karira; Dr. Rajan; and many more uncountable friends. I think on register of complaint people will start receiving payback which I hope. It has taken me 33 months to reach this stage.
sharadphadke posted a topic in Discussions on RTIThere was a hearing of my complaint against Bank of India for supply of false, incomplete and malafide information under Section 18 (1) © (e) and (f) on 30/11/2011 at 3-30PM. This was my ATM case. I attended the hearing in person as the reasons were very important such as: 1.) My online complaint filed with all necessary documents was returned by Dy. Registrar stating there is no RTI application. 2.) I was asked to re submit the case in 2 hard copies with AA’s order if any. 3.) On submission to my luck the case came for hearing very early but the number given was having “A” in the file number where as I had filed the proper complaint to CIC with sample proof of false information. 4.) When a copy of complaint was asked it was found only one side of the page was scanned and half case made. 5.) There was no reply from IC Mr. Gandhi or from registry about corrective action. Hence I was forced to resubmit full file single page printed and as a safety Data Received on CD was also sent with the copy. 6.) Hence it was necessary to spend time & money to attend hearing in person to check if all papers are taken care of. A written argument was given in the case during hearing and it was very well stressed that this is the case of enquiry under section 18. But the same was not referred in order passed. I don’t know if it is taken on record or not. Copy of this argument is attached to this post. IC Mr. Gandhi showed envelop which was sent with my case papers showing there is no CD in the same. During hearing IC Mr. Gandhi stressed I am not a Police to investigate the case and hence this job has to be done by someone else. [in fact according to section 18 (2) (3) & (4) of the Act he has every power to call every document for verification in front of him and that ‘NO’ information cannot be withheld under any pretext.] You can’t expect a commissioner to do Police work hence I am asking FAA to conduct this enquiry. Knowing Mr. Gandhi’s favourable approach towards Bank of India based on my experience of three cases heard in September, 2011 and since my written argument was on record, I did not raised objection in the hearing as there was no point. Only Mr. Gandhi, and God know why he is so afraid of this enquiry business. In one of my case heard on 28/09/2011 also he avoided enquiry stating I have passed an order on 23/09/2011 to rectify Sec. 4 (1) (b) to this PA and this subject is also same. He comfortably forgot that the subject before him was for non-compliance with affidavits and documentary proof in hand. He said even if you insist I will pass the same order and avoided enquiry in the matter. Since he did not wanted to pass any order against Bank, and take the risk on the information asked in query 8 (ii) it appears, he wanted to shift responsibility for this enquiry on someone else and he appointed First Appellant Authority of the Bank itself to verify the charges on CPIO. IN CIC's Order mentions FAA order: “Not Mentioned” But in fact Index shows it was attached and is on page 23. Passing the order FAA says, “3. We also note that with regard to other queries in your application, the available information that are not exempted from disclosure under the provisions of the RTI Act has been furnished by the CPIO vide the said letter dated 03.06.2011. It is also noted that you have not made any specific ground as to how the information given by the CPIO is incomplete. In the light of the provisions of the Act, your letter has been duly replied by the CPIO, Head Office and thus, there is no need for interference of the undersigned, and your appeal is disposed of accordingly.” It is a well-known fact that FAA is “Guardian” of CPIO. Here if FAA is to conduct enquiry in his own case or own bank's case then there is conflict of interest, which is bad in law. Enquiry has to be conducted by unconnected independent person/s. In case of RTI IC should get enquiry conducted by officer of CIC [normally Registrar or Dy. Registrar] or by himself by calling for all records at his office. Looking at the decisions on website of CIC, this is done by IC themselves. Mr. Gandhi has also done this in some cases. Furthermore according to order he has appointed FAA to conduct inquiry by calling me for hearing. It is stated the report be submitted by 15/01/2012. (Sunday) There are no directions as to how the enquiry is to be conducted. Now the points to be seen and discussed in this case are: 1.) Can he appoint FAA to inquire the matter? 2.) Can he give justification to the enquiry when he has vested interest of the Bank? Full decision in this matter: http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SG_A_2011_002398_16042_M_71716.pdf There are two decisions on this subject one from Delhi High Court where CIC has gone in appeal in Supreme Court and second from Punjab and Chandigarh High Court which held this type of appointment is wrong. Both of these decisions are here on our record and hence copy not posted. Our learned and experienced members are requested to put some in-puts on the subject and justify the decision of IC Mr. Gandhi is correct. There is a month for me to gain some points to post RTI success story (if successful) and some squirrel's or tiger's share on this subject. Written argument.pdf
During my one RTI on ATM issue asking details on action taken on RBI Circular dt. 17/7/2009 on "Failed Transactions" I was informed no separate file made on the subject issue. The Record Act says, (1) "file" means a collection of papers relating to the public records on a specific subject-matter consisting of correspondence, notes and appendix there to and assigned with a file number; (2) "standing guard file" means a compilation of papers on a particular subject-matter consisting of copies of policy decision, orders, instructions or any another matter incidental thereto arranged in a chronological order; In this case Bank also states: 1. Kindly note that the said RBI circular contains the guidelines to be followed by the Banks and based on the same our Bank has issued a circuIar to all Branches/Zones and there is no separate file or margin note on it. 2. The details of guidelines / instructions to be followed by the Bank are given in the said RBI circular dated l7/07/2009 and Bank is guided by those instructions. 3. It is informed that Bank has reproduced the provisions of the said RBI circular dated 17.07.2009 to all its branches and Zonal Office vide circular dated 29.08.2009 All this is generated from this circular and hence this becomes part and parcel of "That" subject i.e. "ATM". Then how Bank can say there is no separate file? Even the report sent to RBI based on this circular or instructions becomes the part and parcel of this file. Day to day progress and movement report margin notes on application was asked and the reply is "This contains no Information" as per S.2 of the Act! In this case how to determine if the statement made by Public Authority is correct. Feed back is requested as this will be useful for Second Appeal/Complaint. Does this means "Record Act" is not followed in Banks?
No rules on saving footage: RTI query as reported by Kunal Purohit, Hindustan Times, Mumbai, September 27, 2010 If you find that someone has mysteriously withdrawn money from your bank account using an Automatic Teller Machine (ATM), do not expect the close circuit television camera in the ATM to help you identify the culprit. Most banks do not preserve the footage these CCTVs record for more than a month. This is what activist Mohamed Afzal found out when he filed an application with the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) under the Right To Information Act. The RBI told Khan it has not issued guidelines to banks on the minimum period for which CCTV footage should be preserved. “As a result, citizens are left in a lurch if something goes wrong,” Afzal said. Afzal filed the application after he saw what had happened to 63-year-old Mira Road resident Saifullah Khan (name changed on request). Khan found out in April that somebody had used ATMs to withdraw Rs 3.36 lakh from his bank account over three months. “We wanted the bank to give us the footage captured by close-circuit television cameras in those ATMs so that we could identify the culprit,” Khan’s nephew, Siraj (name changed on request), said. “After dilly-dallying for a month, the manager issued a letter saying the bank preserved the footage only for a month.” Siraj said the manager told them because there were no clear instructions on preserving footage the bank preserved it as long as its infrastructure supported it. “The lack of guidelines means if a bank does not disclose CCTV footage in cases like Khan’s, then there is nothing a common man can do to challenge it,” Afzal said. The manager of a nationalised bank, requesting anonymity because he is not authorised to speak to the media, said: “There are no guidelines on how the footage should be stored so every bank takes an individual decision. We preserve the footage on computers until the disk has memory space and on compact discs after that.” The manager said there was an urgent need for the RBI to regulate this practice. “Most banks avoid taking security measures because of the expenditure involved,” the manager said. No rules on saving footage: RTI query - Hindustan Times
karira posted a topic in RTI in MediaAs reported by PTI on ptinews.com on 17 February 2008: Info on operation of ATMs not to be revealed under RTI: CIC Info on operation of ATMs not to be revealed under RTI: CIC New Delhi, Feb 17 (PTI) Citizens cannot invoke their right to information to compel commercial banks to share the details on operation of their ATMs, the Central Information Commission (CIC) has held. The Commission's observation came as it turned down an RTI application seeking certain information from the country's biggest lender SBI about the operation of its ATMs. "Information concerning operation of ATMs is really a matter of commercial confidence and as a matter of fact, lot of security is involved in such a procedure and such information can not be given to any outsider," Information Commissioner Padma Balasubramanian said in a recent order. The order came on a plea of G Ramachandra Rao, a resident of Kurnool in Andhra Pradesh, who had approached SBI with a plethora of queries ranging from defective disbursement of its ATMs to seeking copies of guidelines framed by RBI and Indian Banks' Association (IBA) on maintenance of the Automated Teller Machines. Turning down Rao's request for the guidelines, General Manager of SBI's Kurnool branch had said that there were no specific guidelines of RBI or IBA on maintenance of ATMs or withdrawing excess cash from them. On the question of defective disbursement of ATMs, the bank said that such details were specific to its customers and would fall under the category of 'third-party information', which was categorically exempted from disclosure under the RTI Act, 2005. "I agree with the stand taken by the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of SBI," Balasubramanian said while disposing of the applicant's plea.