के (cid:3)ीयसूचनाआयोग Central Information Commission बाबागंगनाथमाग(cid:18),मुिनरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नईिद(cid:24)ी, New Delhi – 110067 िtiतीयअपीलसं(cid:30)ा / Second Appeal No.CIC/OBKOC/A/2018/614821 Prathviraj H … /Appellant अपीलकता(cid:8) VERSUS बनाम CPIO, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Frazer Town, Bangalore. … /Respondents (cid:9)ितवादीगण Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

O R D E R

(30.12.2019)

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 19.03.2018 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 25.01.2018 and first appeal dated 17.02.2018: “I had filed a complaint regarding failed ATM transactions on 07.03.2017 at the Oriental Bank of commerce, Vamanjoor Branch, Mangalore and requested for CCTV footage. But the CCTV retriever who arrived on 21.03.2017 found no recordings of the disputed transactions and had reported the same to the bank. Hence, following information was required in reference of the above complaint:

(i) CCTV retrievers report dated 21.03.2017 reporting the missing of CCTV footages of disputed transactions.”

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 25.01.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO),Oriental Bank of Commerce, CMO Classic Bangalore, Frazer Town, Bangalore, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO replied on 09.02.2018. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal dated 17.02.2018. The First Appellate Authority disposed of the first appeal vide order dated 16.03.2018. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed a second appeal dated 19.03.2018before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant filed the instant appeal dated 19.03.2018 inter alia on the grounds that the CPIO failed to provide the desired information. The appellant has requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information immediately.

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 09.02.2018 denied the information stating that information sought pertained to internal matter of the bank. The FAA vide his order dated 16.03.2018 agreed with the views taken by the CPIO and also stated that the appellant’s complaint to the Banking Ombudsman on the same matter was also closed on 14.06.2017.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent, Shri Chandra Rao, Chief Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Bangalore attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that he lost Rs. 20,000/- in ‘failed ATM transaction’ dated 13th and 14th of February 2017. His complaint was rejected by the branch, claiming that the transactions were successful. Subsequently, the appellant requested for CCTV footage of his disputed transaction with the bank. The CCTV retriever, who arrived on 21.03.2017, reported to the bank that the video footages were missing around disputed days only. The bank failed to provide me CCTV footages and also the retrievers report about the missing footages. Hence, the appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide retriever report to him.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that CCTV was not functional during the aforesaid transactions date. However, the only ATM camera footage available was given to the appellant during the Banking Ombudsman proceedings along with other relevant copies of documents. They further submitted that CCTV retrievers report dated 21.03.2017 could not be given being security issue. 6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, notes that reply given by the respondent is misleading and evasive. The CCTV footage of the transactions made by the appellant was not available with them due to n