ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 29.05.2022 seeking information on the following points:

“In my capacity as legal heir and surviving member I seek the information under RTI Act as requested to Canara Bank Pitampura Branch II vide my letter dated 21-5-2022 duly informing therein about the death of my parents wrt Accounts No. 90962030000866 and 90962010005700 and locker number 738:

1. A copy of statement of accounts for the FY 2015-16 to 2021-22 i.e. as on date.

2. A copy of all communications wrt Locker no. 738 being in the name of deceased mother Madhu Kapoor and my deceased father Shri Rabinder Nath Kapoor i.e. information wrt death of Madhu Kapoor, name and date of addition of the other joint holder in the locker and closure date of locker. A copy of the ledger sheet wrt locker visit be provided.

3. A copy of legal heir / surviving member certificate as submitted for closure of the locker.

4. A copy of the communication or any medical paper provided by Shri Rabinder Nath Kapoor or any request letter from either of the holders for closure of locker no. 738.

5. The details of the fixed deposits as held by my deceased parents i.e. Rabinder Nath Kapoor, PAN AEGPK3367Q Aadhar 961940480744, Madhu Kapoor PAN AUQPL7595N Aadhar 434909815345”

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 16.06.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:- “The information sought by you is held by the Bank in the Fiduciary capacity and is the personal information of the Account holder/Locker heir. Bank cannot disclose such information to you as sharing of such information is exempted under Section 8(1)(e) & 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. However, in case of death of the account holder, such information can be disclosed only to their legal heirs after submitting Succession Certificate issued by the competent court and after obtaining NOC from other legal heirs of the deceased.”

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.06.2022. The FAA vide order dated 13.07.2022 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.

4. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.

5. The Appellant was present and assisted by Lalit Khanna in person and on behalf of the Respondent, Vinod Kumar, Divisional Manager & CPIO attended the hearing in person.

6. The Appellant at the outset admitted that although at the time of the CPIO’s reply, she was not in the possession of the requisite documents but now she has submitted the required proof to the Bank and the Bank has provided her some information but she is aggrieved with the information received about the locker and wishes to peruse the relevant records related to the locker herself to allay her apprehensions. She further submitted that she is also not satisfied with the copy of the ledger provided to her by the CPIO as it is not legible. Later, she harped on her request to allow her to peruse the locker records and alleged that after the death of her parents, the name of her brother has been added as a joint holder it seems and this fact stands disputed.

7. The Respondent submitted that the Bank has provided the Appellant with the available information and agreed to provide a legible copy of the averred record desired by her. While, as for her apprehensions regarding addition/change of joint holder of the averred locker, the CPIO attempted to clarify that the Bank has no ulterior motive in concealing any information or any arbitrary interest in having names added/deleted from bank accounts, therefore whatever is available as a record, it has been already provided to the Appellant.

8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that both the parties appear to have exchanged correspondences subsequent to the filing of the instant Second Appeal, by virtue of which, at this stage, neither the CPIO insisted for the A