Thursday, April 23, 2015

Suggestion for Death Claim to Nominee of Deposit Account

Date: 21-04-2015                                             

by email and posted on website of RBI

To,
Chief General Manager
Consumer Education and Protection Department
Reserve Bank of India
1st Floor, Amar Building, Sir P.M. Road,
Mumbai 400001

Respected Sir,

Subject: Suggestion for Death Claim to Nominee of Deposit Account

I humbly submit following suggestion as part of ease of doing business with banks in India by Indians:

            1. As per extant guidelines, nominee is to be identified by obtaining signature and seal of a magistrate or a judicial officer or a govt officer or bank officer or two customers acceptable to the Bank. Due to increased mobility of youths, it may not be always possible to obtain such signatures on claim form by nominee. At times such officers may not know the nominee personally. Nominee may be residing at distant place, from bank branch, where his parents may have accounts.

I suggest that in addition to above condition, following options be considered:

A]. Claim form should be accepted if countersigned by a public notary also.

B]. Nominee may be allowed to establish his identity through submission of self attested photocopies of documents prescribed for Proof of Identity and Proof of Address for KYC. Paying Bank officer should verify originals [if nominee visits personally] or Bank should accept photocopies attested by a gazetted officer or notary or bank manager with his seal. At times such officers may not counter-sign claim form but would be ready to attest photocopies based on originals. In case if aadhar card/number is submitted by nominee, then paying bank can check its genuineness by referring to on-line aadhar authentication link, without insisting for other attested papers and match with the details given by nominee.

C]. Bank should not insist that nominee should personally visit the Bank for collecting claim amount. Bank should accept forms submitted by post with prescribed papers [original death certificate, pass book or TDR etc]. Claim amount be paid by account payee draft to be sent by post or through RTGS/NEFT for credit to nominee’s account.

D]. Nominee may be required to affix his photograph with cross signature on claim form and may also submit cancelled cheque of his account if claim amount is required by RTGS/NEFT.

E]. For settlement of claim to nominee in respect of locker and safe custody articles [which are comparatively less in number to total nominee claims] existing guidelines should continue.

            2. I have observed that very few banks have uploaded downloadable forms for claim by nominee on their websites, though most banks have forms for non-nominee claimants on their websites. This compels nominee to visit bank for collecting blank form and then again for submission and then again for collecting cheque etc. If downloadable form is on website of concerned Bank, then it can be downloaded, completed with necessary papers and submitted to the bank in person to collect local cheque/DD in an hour or so or advise bank to remit claim amount by post by local cheque/DD. The downloadable form should contain complete step by step instructions to complete required formality.

I hope RBI will consider my suggestion positively.


Sunday, April 19, 2015

Suggestion for Safety of ATM Transactions –Cloning of Card

Date: 19-04-2015                                                by email  and posted on website of RBI

To,
Chief General Manager
Consumer Education and Protection Department
Reserve Bank of India
1st Floor, Amar Building, Sir P.M. Road,
Mumbai-400 001

Respected Sir,

Subject: Suggestion for Safety of ATM Transactions –Cloning of Card

Whenever there is fraudulent withdrawal due to cloning of card and skimming of PIN, it becomes difficult for card holder to prove to bank that card was physically with him at the time of perpetration of fraudulent withdrawal at ATM. I suggest that as part of customer education each ATM should bear notice as under:

“Whenever card holder gets SMS intimation about unauthorized withdrawal at ATM from his account, even when he has not operated card for cash withdrawal, the card holder should immediately visit nearest ATM of any bank and withdraw small amount with original card. This will facilitate customer to prove that original card was with him at the time of claim for refund from his bank. CCTV footage will also substantiate it.”

I handled similar fraud case of my friend and bank had sought proof of physically holding card at the time of fraud. Hence this suggestion.


Suggestion for Safety of ATM Transactions

Date: 19-04-2015                                                by email  and posted on website of RBI

To,
Chief General Manager
Consumer Education and Protection Department
Reserve Bank of India
1st Floor, Amar Building, Sir P.M. Road,
Mumbai-400 001

Respected Sir,

Subject: Suggestion for Safety of ATM Transactions

For on line payment by debit/credit cards customers get One Time Password [OTP] on registered mobiles before making payment. I suggest that same system be adopted for ATM cash withdrawals. Customers should send particular SMS message [say “ATM”] from registered mobile to a particular number given by bank. In few minutes customer should get SMS informing him of OTP, which should be valid for 15 minutes. Cash should be dispensed only when OTP is keyed in ATM, in addition to PIN. This will stop ATM frauds by cloning of cards and skimming of PINs.

I handled similar fraud case of my friend and it took one year for SBI to refund the amount, after prolonged correspondence from Branch up to Chairperson, 7 RTI applications and three first appeals. Hence this suggestion.


Friday, April 17, 2015

SUCCESS STORY - STATE BANK OF INDIA REFUNDS DEFRAUDED AMOUNT THROUGH RTI PUNCH


STATE BANK OF INDIA REFUNDS DEFRAUDED AMOUNT THROUGH RTI PUNCH

Exactly one year ago, an amount of Rs.18500/- was withdrawn from ATM of State Bank of Mysore [SBM] at Belapur near Mumbai, while my friend was having his SBI [State bank of India] ATM card at Junagadh [nearly 700 kms away]. He got SMS for debit. A complaint and claim was lodged with branch of SBI at Junagadh. In addition RTI was filed with SBM for CCTV footage which they supplied through SBI along with reports generated by ATM system.

SBI first treated this as ATM failed transaction [where account is debited and no money dispensed by ATM] and declared that their system shows that transaction was successful. We insisted that this is a case of fraud of card cloning and skimming of PIN. SBI accepted it later on. We supported our claim with information received under RTI Act from SBM and also SBI. In August 2014 SBI agreed to reimburse amount but processing and sanction of claim was inordinately delayed at LHO Ahmedabad. Again RTIs were filed to dig out status and manual extract for ATMs etc. Based on this we lodged detailed complaint to Corporate Center at Mumbai. It did not work for a month and hence on              13-04-2015 email was sent to CMD of SBI with relevant details. On 17-04-2015 bank refunded the amount. As per SBI manual, such claims should have been settled in 33 days from date of complaint but was delayed for one year!!! However, we shall be claiming compensation, interest and expenses shortly through administrative channel as per compensation policy of banks and ensure that accountability for unexplained delay is fixed on officers.

In last one year 7 RTI applications and 3 first appeals were filed with SBM and SBI.
Right from branch head to AGM Junagadh to GM/CGM LHO Ahmedabad, DGM Corporate Center Mumbai and ultimately CMD had to be sensitized for such a small claim.

I do not know what this bank will do with poor illiterate villagers when they will use ATMs under Jan Dhan Yojana of Hon’ble Prime Minister. We shall be submitting details of this case to PMO to ensure that villagers are not harassed by banks at least under PMJDY.
  

17-04-2015

Tuesday, April 07, 2015

EDUCATIONAL CERTIFICATES OF GOVT SERVANTS UNDER RTI

Date: 05-04-2015                                                                                           By email

To,
Chief Information Commissioner
Central Information Commission,
New Delhi.
Email: secy-cic@nic.in

Hon’ble Sir,

Subject: Decision  No.: CIC/BS/A/2014/000831/7283 dated 26-03-2015 -Review

As part of social audit and citizen participation in governance, I happened to peruse captioned decision.

01. Denial of educational certificates of a govt.  employee has been upheld vide above decision based on following reasons:

A. There is no larger public interest.

B. Judgement dated 03-10-2012 of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 27734 of 2012-Girish Ramchandra Deshpande Versus Central Information Commr & Ors.

C. Judgement dated 13-12-2012 of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal no. 9052 of 2012 -Bihar Public Service Commission vs. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizvi & anrs

02. I request review of this decision by larger bench based on following averment:

A. There is no larger public interest:

I quote as under from judgement dated 04-03-2013 of Punjab & Haryana High Court in CWP No.4239 of 2013 (O&M) - Vijay Dheer v/s State Information Commission

“…….A part of information/documents sought by the complainant, relates to the mode of appointment/promotion of a person on a public post, therefore, Information / documents to that extent fall under the domain of larger public interest. The documents on the basis of which a person has sought an appointment in a public office becomes the documents of larger public interest." [emphasis added]

This judgement is delivered after two judgements quoted at B and C supra. Thus captioned decision of CIC is in defiance of interpretation of Hon’ble High Court in the matter of documents supplied to recruiting authority and element of larger public interest.

In case of certificates based on which govt job is given, right to privacy has to give way to larger public interest.

B. Judgement dated 03-10-2012 of Hon’ble Supreme Court:

This judgement has been as usual over-stretched. Hon’ble Court has decided that following information is personal information of employee:

Copies of all memos issued to the third respondent, show cause notices and orders of censure/punishment, income tax returns, property details, borrowings, investment etc and information relating to performance of duties by employee. Even this has to be disclosed if there is larger public interest.

Certificates or documents submitted to get employment in Govt is not mentioned in above judgement nor such certificates relate to performance of employee. In addition, in judgement mentioned at A, it is clear that disclosure of such certificates is in larger public interest.

C. Judgement dated 13-12-2012 of Hon’ble Supreme Court:

A paragraph is selectively quoted in CIC decision to justify denial. This judgement relates to names and other details of interviewers/examiners and no where educational certificates are discussed in it. It relates to section 8.1.g. Even if fiduciary relationship is considered to be valid, for the sake of argument, then also larger public interest will come into play against section 8.1.e. Fiduciary will prevail only till appointment and not thereafter, once candidate joins the job.

Education or other certificates which are basis of eligibility for recruitment cannot be covered by “certain matters” [as stated in paragraph quoted in captioned decision from judgement dated 13-12-2012] at any stretch of imagination.

Thus this is a case of over stretching, misinterpreting and quoting irrelevant judgement to uphold denial.

03. Judgements at B and C supra of Hon’ble Supreme Court cannot be liberally interpreted or overstretched, since these judgements lay down clarity on restrictions on rights of citizens. These judgements need to be interpreted strictly. I humbly quote Hon’ble Madras High Court [Madurai Bench] from judgement dated 06-07-2010 in Karanthai Tamil Sangam v. R. Sivaprakasam and another, W.P.(MD) No. 5729 of 2008 - (2011(1) ID 31)] as under:

            “23. The RTI Act has also provided a remedy for facilitating the exercise of the        right    to information and the reason for the remedy is also indicated in the      Preamble to   the Act. So going by the direction in Heydon’s case (1584) 3 C. Rep           7a followed by the Supreme Court in Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd v. State of            Bihar   (1955) 2 SCR 603       such an Act must  receive a purposive interpretation to             further the purpose of the   Act. So any interpretation which frustrates the   purpose of RTI Act must be eschewed. Following the said well known canon       of construction, this Court interprets the expression ‘public authority’ u/s.   2(h)     (d)(i) liberally, so that financed, directly or indirectly, by the Government,             come  within the purview    of the RTI Act. In coming to the conclusion, this Court             reminds itself of the Preamble to the RTI Act which necessitates a      construction which will hopefully        cleanse our democratic polity of the corrosive effect of             corruption and infuse transparency in its activities. “ [emphasis added]

04. Unfortunately since 2012, an attempt is being made by CPIOs, FAAs and Ld. ICs to hide all information about govt employees from recruitment till retirement/termination, thereby facilitating corruption, fraud through fake certificates to grab govt jobs at the cost of honest candidates, by misinterpreting, misquoting or over-stretching judgements of Courts. It denies public scrutiny of papers and process of recruitment in govt jobs which are funded by public money. Quality and quantity of scrutiny, if any, done by govt agencies are well known to public in India. Such decisions will embolden dishonest youths to indulge into fake certificates to snatch away govt jobs from honest candidates. Public cannot expect good and honest governance from govt servants who have joined by resorting to corrupt practice of submitting fake certificates. Thus larger public interest and societal good are butchered in captioned decision.

05. The captioned decision violates following judgement which is delivered after judgements of Hon’ble Supreme Court as stated at B and C supra:

 Judgement dated 23-04-2013 of HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND in Writ Petition No.1814 of 2006 (M/S) -Uttaranchal Public Service Commission Vs. CIC.

It  also punctures following  CIC’s  own decisions in violation of  principle of precedence as mandated in judgement dated 01-06-2012 of Hon’ble HIGH COURT OF DELHI in  W.P.(C) 11271/2009 -REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES & ORS v/s DHARMENDRA KUMAR GARG & ANR:

CIC/SS/A/2012/001370 dated 29-04-2013

CIC/SS/A/2013/000829 dated 15-10- 2013

CIC/SM/A/2013/000218 dated 18-06-2013 of Chief Information Commissioner

CIC/SM/A/2013/000284 dated 13-06-2013 of Chief Information Commissioner

These decisions are made after date of judgments of Apex Court quoted at B and C.

06. No one will ever believe or infer that Hon’ble Courts intended to facilitate entry into govt jobs based on fake certificates. The problem is with interpretation and applicability of judgements by CPIO, FAA and Ld ICs. Degree certificates are given in open convocations and mark- sheets are put on websites of examining bodies. Thus they are not private information any more.

07. This information cannot be denied to Parliament or State Assembly.

08. There is every possibility that the appellant might be having some information from reliable sources about fraud in educational certificates of the concerned employee. Before proceeding further by lodging written complaint etc, he would have wanted to have documentary evidence. The decision has frustrated exposure of fraud through fake documents if any.

09. Following links will reveal how rampant is fake certificate business in India, in public and private sectors:









This is tip of the iceberg. This menace cannot be left alone to govt machinery. Public scrutiny should be encouraged through transparency and hence ICs should properly interpret judgements in the face of ground realities. Fear of being exposed will only contain cancer of fake certificates for getting govt jobs.

10. Disclosure would not have harmed govt employee concerned, if certificates were genuine. In case if certificates turn out to be fake, then law has to definitely take its own course in larger public interest and that of honest candidates.

11. My averment for disclosure is supported by section 4.1.c which necessitates publishing of all relevant facts while formulating important policies or announcing decisions which affect public. Results of recruitment are decisions which affect public, as quality of recruited govt servants affects general public.

12. Thus captioned decision suffers error on the face of it and needs review in larger public interest, good governance, quality of employees being recruited and letter and spirit of RTI as stated in preamble, more so when recruitment scams [involving even Governor     [ MP State], Chief Minister [Haryana] and their relatives are surfacing and more are waiting to be out. The order is illegal on face of it. Copy of above decision is enclosed for ready reference.

13. Similar order No.CIC/BS/A/2014/000332+000344+000345+000349/6804 dated         20-01-2015 [copy enclosed] was passed denying educational certificates of a govt employee. This also needs review by larger bench.

14. I have locus standi for review, since govt servants who are allowed to join on the basis of fake certificates or through corruption affect quality of governance, which in turn affects every citizen, including me.

15. Surprisingly, each and every currency note or instruments like cheques, demand drafts, guarantees and LCs in banks are subjected to double and cross scrutiny to confirm genuineness, while captioned decision excludes public scrutiny of certificates submitted for jobs which may cost crores of rupees to exchequer, over service period of employees.

Yours faithfully,
J. P. Shah
Encls: a/a
Copies to:
1. Hon’ble Shri Basant Seth, Information Commissioner, CIC, New Delhi
Email: b.seth@nic.in --Kindly cogitate for future decisions.

2. Chief Vigilance Commissioner, Central Vigilance Commission, New Delhi

----with a request to intervene in review, since such orders would  encourage corruption in getting govt jobs on the basis of fake certificates, which in turn will affect quality of governance.

3. Director RTI, DoPT, Govt of India. Email: dirrti-dopt@nic.in

– this has reference to zero tolerance policy of Central Govt against corruption and ensuring good governance to citizens.

4. Secretary, Department of Administrative Reforms & Public Grievances, Govt of India

– with a request to recommend to govt to proactively put all the details of newly recruited candidates on website of ministry/department concerned and retain on website  for six month