Bank ordered to supply ATM failed transaction details and allow Inspection u/S 4 of RTI Act

2 Complaints lodged with CIC the hearing was conducted on 04/11/2010. The Results are as under:
1. Failed ATM issue: CIC has ordered full list of failed transactions within 15 days. Now this starts the checking of failed transactions with Bank of India and clears obstacles for payment to persons who have not received or compensated by Bank.

2. In Inspection under Section 4 to check the record of failed transactions and procedure set etc u/S 4 the Inspection is allowed. This will ease the matter with other Banks also as I can straight put a requisition or request for inspection of failed ATM Transactions.

3. CIC ordered Bank to implement Section 4 and reconstruct the web-page in 3 months
Central Information Commission
Complaint No.CIC/SM/C/2010/900759 & 762 
Right to Information Act­2005­Under Section (18)
Dated: 4 November 2010
Name of the Complainant 

Shri Sharad Phadke
9A/1, Paschima Nagari,
Near City Pride, Kothurd,
Pune – 411 029.
Name of the Public Authority  
:
CPIO, Bank of India,
Head Office, Star House,
C­5, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex,
Mumbai – 400 051.
CPIO, Bank of India,
Zonal Office, Pune,
1162/6A, Shivajinagar, University Road, 
Pune – 411 052.

The Complainant was present in person.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:­
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
2.
Shri I T Bel, 
Shri S.P. Singh, CPIO,
Smt. Vaishali Ramtake, Law Officer
We heard  both these  cases  together  through  videoconferencing.  The 
Appellant was present in the Pune studio of the NIC. The Respondents were 
present in the Mumbai studio. We heard their submissions.
3.
In   two   separate  applications,  the   Appellant  had  wanted  a   number  of 
information (a) regarding the payment of compensation by the Bank for the 
CIC/SM/C/2010/900759 & 762
delay beyond 12 working days after the filing of complaint regarding the failed 
ATM transaction and (b) the proactive disclosures by the Bank under Section 
4(1) (b) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Although the CPIO offered some 
information/clarification  against  both   these   applications,  the   Appellant  is   not 
satisfied and feels that adequate information has not been provided in the first 
case and that he was not allowed to inspect the records as desired by him in 
the second matter.
4.
After carefully hearing the submissions of both the parties, we think that 
the CPIO should provide some more information in regard to the first request 
and allow the Appellant to inspect the relevant records, as available, in respect 
of   the   second   request.   Therefore,   we   direct   the   CPIO   to   provide   to   the 
Appellant within  10  working days  from the receipt of this order the attested 
photocopies   of   the   file   in   which   his   complaint   regarding   the   failed   ATM 
transaction and the subsequent payment of compensation had been dealt with. 
We   further   direct   the   CPIO   to   assemble   all   the   records   and   documents 
including   circulars   and   guidelines  relating   to   the   various  items  of   proactive 
disclosure at the Branch level in terms of Section 4(1) (b) of the RTI Act at the 
Lakshmi Road Branch and to invite the Appellant to inspect the same on any 
mutually convenient date within 15 working days from the receipt of this order. 
We  expect  that  the  records,  documents,  circulars  and  guidelines  etc  at  the 
branch level will be arranged item­wise against each of the 16 items listed in 
that section before placing it for inspection.  However, if no such disclosure has 
been made at the Branch level, the CPIO shall clearly inform the Appellant 
accordingly.
5.
During the hearing, the law officer of the Zonal Office of the Bank at 
CIC/SM/C/2010/900759 & 762
Pune read out the text of the proactive disclosure made by the Bank in its 
website.   We   must   say   that   we   found   it   extremely   inadequate.   What   was 
expected of the Bank under this provision was that all the relevant circulars and 
guidelines   of   the   Bank   prevalent   at   the   time   of   the   disclosure   would   be 
systematically  disclosed   serially   against  each   of   the   16   items   listed   in   that 
Section;   instead,   what   we   noted   was   that   the   Bank   had   provided   some 
descriptive   and   generalised   statements   about   its   functioning.   We   would 
therefore   like   the   Bank   to   revisit   the   website   immediately   and   make   more 
elaborate and detailed disclosures of all its systems and circulars etc regarding 
its   functioning  as  expected  under  each  item  of  this  section.  The  website  is 
expected to be updated every year and, therefore, while revising the contents of 
the website, the Bank is expected to bring it up to date. We direct that this 
exercise be completed within three months from the receipt of this order. The 
CPIO is directed to forward a copy of our order to the CMD of the Bank for 
further necessary action. The compliance of this order be reported to the CIC 
soon thereafter.
6. With the above directions, the appeal are disposed off.
7. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy.  Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against 
application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this 
Commission.
CIC/SM/C/2010/900759 & 762
(Vijay Bhalla)
Assistant Registrar 
CIC/SM/C/2010/900759 & 762