ORDER

(09.01.2023) 1. The issue under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 23.09.2021 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 10.05.2021 and first appeal dated 21.06.2021:-

“His late mother Smt. Veena Saxena was maintaining various accounts including SB and fixed deposit accounts with Karol Bagh branch for many years. With reference to above, provide the following information under RTI Act, 2005-

(i) Customer number of Smt. Veena Saxena.

(ii) Statement of SB account in the name of Smt. Veena Saxena (singly or jointly) from 01.01.2004 till date.

(iii) Statement of accounts of all the fixed deposits maintained with branch from 01.01.2004 till date. The appellant enclosing photographs of a few fixed deposit receipts that would have matured after her death.

(iv) Certified copies of the account opening forms for all the SB and fixed deposit accounts.

(v) Details of nominees for all the SB and fixed deposit accounts at the time of opening of these accounts as well any amendments made later on, if any, provide certified copies of nomination forms.”

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 10.05.2021 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Bank of Maharashtra, New Delhi, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 09.07.2021 replied to the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 21.06.2021. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) did not pass any order. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed second appeal dated 23.09.2021 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 23.09.2021 inter alia on the grounds that reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the complete information and take necessary action as per Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act.

4. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 09.07.2021 and the same is reproduced as under:-

(i) “The documents submitted by RTI applicant are not proof of legal heir ship to the account holder.

(ii) As per available bank records of deposit accounts in Karol Bagh in the name of Veena Saxena, Anjali Kapoor is neither nominee nor having mandate of joint account holder. The information sought is thereby being as the information of the account in the name of Veena Saxena is being sought through third party, the same is exempted under Section 8 (1) (d) and 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act, 2005 as third party information.”

The FAA did not pass any order.

5. The appellant’s representative Mr. Rajesh Kapoor and on behalf of the respondent Shri Narender Kumar, Deputy Manager, Bank of Maharashtra, Delhi, attended the hearing in person.

5.1. The appellant’s representative inter alia submitted that the appellant was daughter of the deceased account holder i.e. Late Mrs. Veena Saxena. Further, they had submitted identity proof establishing her relationship with the account holder and in spite of submission of relevant documents, the respondent had denied the information to the appellant.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the appellant had not submitted legal heir certificate in relation to the account holder. Therefore, the appellant being a third party was not parted with the information.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that the reply given by the CPIO was perfunctory. It may be noted that the issue for consideration before the Commission was not settlement of claim of money/account balance but the issue was disclosure of the information. The appellant being the daughter of the deceased account holder