Date: 15-12-2010 by email
To,
Shri R.K. Girdhar
Under Secretary [RTI]
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions
Department of Personnel Training
Government of India
North Block, New Delhi-110001
Email ID usrti-dopt@nic.in
Dear Sir,
Subject: Amendment to Central Govt. RTI Rules.
This bears reference to OM Nr. 113512008-IR dated 10-12-2010. I thank you for inviting suggestion from stake holders on proposed amendment to Central Govt. RTI Rules.
It appears to me that Central Govt. is trying to puncture RTI Act through procedural hurdles and complications in RTI rules, as some state govts have done by clandestinely weakening SICs. While I object to proposed changes, I humbly append below my suggestions for kind consideration, if at all Govt. is bent upon to amend the rules:
01. Ceiling of 250 words should be limited to “Particulars of Information required” part of application [as provided in Karnataka RTI Rules as amended on 17-03-2008 for 150 words], because applicant is at times required to mention back ground or references so that it is easy for CPIO to locate information. In addition applicant has to mention date, details of payment of application fee and enclosures etc. He has to declare citizenship and also mode of mailing information to him by CPIO. He has also to mention that this application is under RTI Act 2005.
02. It is also suggested that if limit of 250 words exceeds, CPIO should reply queries up to first 250 words rather than rejecting application for this reason.
03. I suggest that if application seeks information on more than one subject, CPIO should reply for first subject mentioned instead of rejecting application for multi-subjects. There could be dispute about whether subject matter is one or more between CPIO and applicant.
04. Gujarat Govt. has provided for payment of application fee by revenue stamps [in addition to court fee stamps, non-judicial stamps, IPO etc] vide its notification dated 22-03-2010. I suggest that revenue stamps should be made one of the modes for payment of application fee in central rules. This will solve problem of name of payee of DD or IPO etc also.
05. You have suggested format for first appeal in rule 7. However it should also be provided that “for the purpose of removing any doubt it is hereby clarified that the 'forms', as prescribed under these rules, need not be in authorized pre-printed stationery, but any format neatly typed, handwritten or in electronic form which covers essential details described in the form shall be valid.” as stated in aforesaid Gujarat RTI rules of 22-03-2010.
06. Rule 5f [postal charges] should be deleted, since it will create large number of operational problems for public authorities and RTI users and will prove expensive for both as even for petty amount, CPIO will require payment. A speed post or registered envelope requires minimum Rs.25/- and hence if reply is required by speed or registered post, for each application, applicant will be required to pay Rs.15/- for which he will incur Rs.25/- on postage plus bank charges. In addition CPIO will expend Rs.25/- to intimate additional postal charges. This will amount to penny wise, pound foolish. It will also delay supply of information.
07. Rule 5g [Machine Hiring Charges] should be deleted, as this rule will also open Pandora box and CPIOs and applicants will be busy in sorting out exact amount, wasting good public money on trivial issues. It is difficult to calculate hiring charges. This can be misused by CPIO to dodge information or over burden applicants. The rule is patently absurd and anti-citizen aimed at complicating the matter.
08. There is need to fix time limit on CIC to decide appeals and complaints. It could be ideally 90 or 120 days. Delay beyond this period should entitle appellant compensation of Rs.50/- per day. This will be a step towards concept of Govt. Service Guarantee Act as introduced by Delhi and M.P States and is being actively considered by Bihar Govt.
09. In rule 8 and 10 self attested copies of documents should be prescribed instead of ‘duly authenticated and verified’. FAA and CIC can always get authenticated copies from CPIO during hearing.
10. Rule 5 [a] it should be A-4 size instead of A-3. Normally A-4 size is used.
11. A limit of 50 free pages for BPL applicants should be prescribed under rule 5. More than 50 pages should attract normal charges prescribed in rule 5. There are reports that provision of free supply of information to BPL applicants is being misused.
12. Money order in favour of CPIO should be approved as mode of payment for other charges and application fee under rule 6, since demand drafts for exact amount of other charges are costly. At times IPOs are not available for exact amount of charges.
13. Words ‘Central Public Information Officer’ should be included in rule 6 [a], otherwise CPIO may not accept cash. All public authorities do not have ACPIO in all their offices.
14. ‘Banker’s Cheque’ word in rule 6[b] is causing confusion and applicants are sending their own cheques drawn on banks. It should be replaced with “ pay order, local cheque issued by banks”
15. It should be made mandatory for first appellate authority to inform to appellant along with his decision, reasons for delaying decision by extra 15 days beyond 30 days, which he is presently required to record in writing as per section 19.6 of RTI Act.
16. In rules 14 [1] period should be 15 days, as 7 days are too short to prepare and travel.
17. It should be also provided that CPIO may waive application fee in his discretion, since recovery of application fee of Rs.10/- will require more than Rs.100/- by way of postal charges, man hours and cost of stationery. DoPT has reportedly advised recently on this score to all public authorities.
18. It should also be provided in rule 5 that fees for providing information [other charges] exceeding Rs.50/- should only be recovered from applicant. Usually Govt. expends Rs.100/- by way of postal charges, man hours and stationery for obtaining petty amount of say Rs.10 or Rs.20 or Rs.50. In addition applicant incurs another Rs.50/- for paying small amount towards postal charges, bank commission, visits to post office and banks etc. This process also causes delay in supply of information. This is more than justified when Govt. is wasting huge sums of good public money in scams, frauds, committees, and huge avoidable wasteful expenses. Let Govt. waive petty amount for benefit of common men and his fundamental rights Govt. will in turn save double the amount used for recovery of small charges. Some banks and few Gujarat offices follow this practice of not insisting for petty amount for supply of information.
19. Audio/video recording of proceedings at FAA and CIC should be permitted at appellant’s cost and request.
20. To avoid filing of writs in High Court against decisions of CIC and to avoid congestion in courts as per National Litigation Policy of Govt. of India, there should be provision of review of decisions of single Information Commissioner by larger or full bench of CIC.
I quote: The State is not only under an obligation to respect rights of the citizen, but is equally under an obligation to ensure conditions under which rights can be meaningfully and effectively enjoyed by one and all.
Yours faithfully,
J. P. Shah
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Friday, December 10, 2010
JUDGEMENTS & DECISIONS WHICH HAVE PERMITTED DISCLOSURE OF EVALUATED ANSWER SHEETS UNDER RTI.
JUDGEMENTS & DECISIONS WHICH HAVE PERMITTED DISCLOSURE OF EVALUATED ANSWER SHEETS UNDER RTI.
i]. University Exams: 49 page judgement dated 05-02-2009 of divisional bench of Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta headed by Chief Justice in M.A.T. No. 275 of 2008-University of Calcutta & ors. Vs Pritam Rooj. This is judgement of divisional bench of a High Court headed by Chief Justice and is available on website of High Court of Calcutta.
ii]Departmental Promotion Exams: High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in WP(C).No. 6532 of 2006(C) Treesa Irish Vs CPIO Dept of Post, Govt. of India and others dated 30-08-2010 [27 pages]
...
iii] Public Service Com Exam: In CWJC NO. 160665 of 2008 (Bihar Public Service Commission Vs. State Information Commission and others) decided on 11.12.2008, the High Court of Judicature at Patna upheld the order passed by the State Information Commission directing supply of photocopy of the answer books of two papers to the information seeker, of an examination conducted by Bihar Public Service Commission. The Hon’ble High Court directed that, “…..the BPSC shall supply a certified copy of the answer books demanded by the petitioner, as undertaken by the learned Advocate General on its behalf, within a period of three weeks from today.”
iv] Professional Exams: High Court of Delhi on 30.04.2009 in W.P.(C) 8529/2009 Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, v/s. Central Information Commission, New Delhi.
v] Departmental Exams: WP (C) No.30963 of 2006 (J), (V.B.Santosh vs. CPIO o/o the Post Master General, Kerala Circle) of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala vide order dated 29.2.2008.
vi] University Exams: W.P.(MD)NO.4815 of 2008 of Madurai Bench of Madras High Court on 13/09/2010 - R.Ramasamy v/s 1.The Secretary, Ministry of Higher Education, Chennai, 2.The Registrar, T.N. Dr. Ambedkar Law University, Chennai and others.
vii] All types of answer sheets: STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB, Chandigadh .dated 27-05-2010 CC No. 3033 of 2009:Sh. Surinder Kumar Vs Public Information Officer, O/o Commissioner, Excise & Taxation Punjab, [IMPORTANT].
Note: High Court of Gujarat in its judgement dated 29-06-2009 in SCA No. 5178 of 2008 has decided that answer sheets are not records as per RTI Act. This is available at
http://gujarathc-casestatus.nic.in/gujarathc/showoj.jsp?side=C&casetype=SCA&caseno=5178&caseyr=2008&orddate=29/06/2009&ordno=3&incrno=3&findcatg=ordnSearch&h=asda#238#901dsdsa
Please also visit:
HOW TO ACCESS EVALUATED ANSWER SHEETS:
http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/blogs/jps50/481-how-access-exam-answer-sheets.html
_______________________________________________________
Compiled by J P Shah, Junagadh Cell 9924106490
i]. University Exams: 49 page judgement dated 05-02-2009 of divisional bench of Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta headed by Chief Justice in M.A.T. No. 275 of 2008-University of Calcutta & ors. Vs Pritam Rooj. This is judgement of divisional bench of a High Court headed by Chief Justice and is available on website of High Court of Calcutta.
ii]Departmental Promotion Exams: High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in WP(C).No. 6532 of 2006(C) Treesa Irish Vs CPIO Dept of Post, Govt. of India and others dated 30-08-2010 [27 pages]
...
iii] Public Service Com Exam: In CWJC NO. 160665 of 2008 (Bihar Public Service Commission Vs. State Information Commission and others) decided on 11.12.2008, the High Court of Judicature at Patna upheld the order passed by the State Information Commission directing supply of photocopy of the answer books of two papers to the information seeker, of an examination conducted by Bihar Public Service Commission. The Hon’ble High Court directed that, “…..the BPSC shall supply a certified copy of the answer books demanded by the petitioner, as undertaken by the learned Advocate General on its behalf, within a period of three weeks from today.”
iv] Professional Exams: High Court of Delhi on 30.04.2009 in W.P.(C) 8529/2009 Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, v/s. Central Information Commission, New Delhi.
v] Departmental Exams: WP (C) No.30963 of 2006 (J), (V.B.Santosh vs. CPIO o/o the Post Master General, Kerala Circle) of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala vide order dated 29.2.2008.
vi] University Exams: W.P.(MD)NO.4815 of 2008 of Madurai Bench of Madras High Court on 13/09/2010 - R.Ramasamy v/s 1.The Secretary, Ministry of Higher Education, Chennai, 2.The Registrar, T.N. Dr. Ambedkar Law University, Chennai and others.
vii] All types of answer sheets: STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB, Chandigadh .dated 27-05-2010 CC No. 3033 of 2009:Sh. Surinder Kumar Vs Public Information Officer, O/o Commissioner, Excise & Taxation Punjab, [IMPORTANT].
Note: High Court of Gujarat in its judgement dated 29-06-2009 in SCA No. 5178 of 2008 has decided that answer sheets are not records as per RTI Act. This is available at
http://gujarathc-casestatus.nic.in/gujarathc/showoj.jsp?side=C&casetype=SCA&caseno=5178&caseyr=2008&orddate=29/06/2009&ordno=3&incrno=3&findcatg=ordnSearch&h=asda#238#901dsdsa
Please also visit:
HOW TO ACCESS EVALUATED ANSWER SHEETS:
http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/blogs/jps50/481-how-access-exam-answer-sheets.html
_______________________________________________________
Compiled by J P Shah, Junagadh Cell 9924106490
Friday, November 19, 2010
Reminder for First Appeal under RTI Act
REMINDER TO FIRST APPEAL
Now a new mischievous trend is witnessed, whereby first appellate authority [FAA] does not answer first appeal, forcing information seeker to resort to complaint or second appeal to CIC/SIC. Complaint or second appeal is heard after delay ranging from 6 to 36 months, where in IC remands the matter back to FAA to decide in a fixed time.
Under such a situation, FAAs are encouraged not to decide first appeals and thus compel appellants to file second appeals or complaints, since FAAs know that Information Commissions will at the most remand back to FAAs only, after 6 to 36 months, without fixing accountability for not performing their duties under the Act. In addition to this, appellants are put to inconvenience, expenses, visits, frustration and wastage of time and money in approaching Commission and again to FAAs. This style pampers ego of FAAs and dignity of common men is lowered down in a democratic country. Appellants will once again be required to approach Commission if they are not satisfied with decisions of FAAs. This amounts to merry-go-round [pillar to post] bureaucratic procedure well known in India, which is antithetical to letter and spirit of RTI. This procedure not only delays supply of information and causes hardship to appellants, it also increases avoidable work load of Information Commissions.
I suggest that a letter as per attached draft should be addressed to FAA with copy to Head of Organization, if no decision is received within stipulated time of 45 days + 10 days [both side postal time] from date of mailing first appeal. Simultaneously file second appeal or complaint and attach copy of this reminder with it. Mail copy of second appeal or complaint to FAA and PIO under UPC post with suggested reminder.
This may expedite decision of first appeal and if you are not satisfied with reply of FAA, you can file addendum to second appeal/complaint pending with Information Commission. If you still do not get reply of FAA, this reminder may deter information commissioner from remanding appeal/complaint back to FAA. Commission will itself take decision. This reminder will justify and strengthen your prayer for disciplinary action against FAA and for compensation also. Head of Organization may take cognizance of flouting RTI Act by FAA if repeated complaints of this type are received by him. A positive impact will result due to reminder over a period of time, if consistently pressed by applicants.
____________________________________________________________________________________
From:
Address:
Cell:
_______________________________________________________________
Date: _______
REMINDER
By Regd AD post
To,
___________________ [Designation]
Appellate Authority under RTI Act,
__________________________
___________________________
Subject: FIRST APPEAL UNDER RTI ACT 2005-REMINDER
I had mailed first appeal dated _____ for my RTI application dated _______, in connection with ________________.
2. My appeal has not been replied within stipulated period as yet. Thus I would have been justified in lodging complaint u/s 18 or second appeal u/s 19.3 of RTI Act. Before I lodge this complaint/appeal, I remind you to decide my said appeal at the earliest.
3. In case if I do not get decision within 15 days from the date hereof, I shall presume that you have decided to deliberately, knowingly and malafidely defy provisions of an act passed by the Parliament. I may remind you that this is a quasi-judicial duty enjoined on you in personal capacity under RTI Act. This is not just an administrative duty, which you can bunk with impunity. Your indifference is affecting my fundamental right guaranteed under article 19.1.a of Constitution of India.
4. I am sure, service rules of your dept/organization must have classified transgression of law of land and breaching fundamental rights of a citizen by public servants, as gross misconduct. By not deciding on my appeal within stipulated time frame, you are rendering yourself liable and answerable to govt/management through departmental action.
5. I am aware FAAs hardly care for decisions of Information Commissions. None the less, I invite your kind attention to following CIC decisions:
No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001352/8407 dated 05-07-2010
No.CIC/SG/A/2010/000085/6895Adjunct dated 05-07-2010
No. CIC/AT/A/2008/00290 dated 17-07-2008
No.CIC/AD/A/2010/000952 dated August 18, 2010 and also
office memorandum No. 10/23/2007-IR dated 09-07-2007 of DoPT,
Govt of India, New Delhi and judgements in following petitions in the matter of delay:
Writ petition No. 8348/2009 in High Court of Bombay [Aurangabad bench] dated 25-01-2010.
SLP No. 6584/2010 in High Court of Gujarat dated 01-09-2010
6.I also draw your kind attention to the fact that you are rendering your organization/department accountable under The Consumer Protection Act 1986, since I am consumer under this act as decided by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi on 28-05-2009 in Revision Petition Nr. 1975 OF 2005.
7. I humbly append important extract from judgement of Hon’ble SUPREME COURT OF INDIA in Lucknow Development Authority V/s. M.K. Gupta [CITATION: 1994 AIR 787 1994 SCC (1) 243 JT 1993 (6) 307 1993 SCALE (4)370}
“Under our Constitution sovereignty vests in the people. Every limb of the constitutional machinery is obliged to be people oriented. No functionary in exercise of statutory power can claim immunity, except to the extent protected by the statute itself. Public authorities acting in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions oppressively are accountable for their behaviour before authorities created under the statute like the commission or the courts entrusted with responsibility of maintaining the rule of law. “
8. Please speed up your decision in your own interest.
Yours faithfully,
_______________
Copy by post to:
Head of Govt. dept or organization
-I request you to initiate [or order] departmental action against FAA for transgression of law passed by Parliament, which must be a gross misconduct under your service rules. For common men and women, it is shocking to witness that public servants are having such scant respect for laws of the country and fundamental rights of citizens.
Now a new mischievous trend is witnessed, whereby first appellate authority [FAA] does not answer first appeal, forcing information seeker to resort to complaint or second appeal to CIC/SIC. Complaint or second appeal is heard after delay ranging from 6 to 36 months, where in IC remands the matter back to FAA to decide in a fixed time.
Under such a situation, FAAs are encouraged not to decide first appeals and thus compel appellants to file second appeals or complaints, since FAAs know that Information Commissions will at the most remand back to FAAs only, after 6 to 36 months, without fixing accountability for not performing their duties under the Act. In addition to this, appellants are put to inconvenience, expenses, visits, frustration and wastage of time and money in approaching Commission and again to FAAs. This style pampers ego of FAAs and dignity of common men is lowered down in a democratic country. Appellants will once again be required to approach Commission if they are not satisfied with decisions of FAAs. This amounts to merry-go-round [pillar to post] bureaucratic procedure well known in India, which is antithetical to letter and spirit of RTI. This procedure not only delays supply of information and causes hardship to appellants, it also increases avoidable work load of Information Commissions.
I suggest that a letter as per attached draft should be addressed to FAA with copy to Head of Organization, if no decision is received within stipulated time of 45 days + 10 days [both side postal time] from date of mailing first appeal. Simultaneously file second appeal or complaint and attach copy of this reminder with it. Mail copy of second appeal or complaint to FAA and PIO under UPC post with suggested reminder.
This may expedite decision of first appeal and if you are not satisfied with reply of FAA, you can file addendum to second appeal/complaint pending with Information Commission. If you still do not get reply of FAA, this reminder may deter information commissioner from remanding appeal/complaint back to FAA. Commission will itself take decision. This reminder will justify and strengthen your prayer for disciplinary action against FAA and for compensation also. Head of Organization may take cognizance of flouting RTI Act by FAA if repeated complaints of this type are received by him. A positive impact will result due to reminder over a period of time, if consistently pressed by applicants.
____________________________________________________________________________________
From:
Address:
Cell:
_______________________________________________________________
Date: _______
REMINDER
By Regd AD post
To,
___________________ [Designation]
Appellate Authority under RTI Act,
__________________________
___________________________
Subject: FIRST APPEAL UNDER RTI ACT 2005-REMINDER
I had mailed first appeal dated _____ for my RTI application dated _______, in connection with ________________.
2. My appeal has not been replied within stipulated period as yet. Thus I would have been justified in lodging complaint u/s 18 or second appeal u/s 19.3 of RTI Act. Before I lodge this complaint/appeal, I remind you to decide my said appeal at the earliest.
3. In case if I do not get decision within 15 days from the date hereof, I shall presume that you have decided to deliberately, knowingly and malafidely defy provisions of an act passed by the Parliament. I may remind you that this is a quasi-judicial duty enjoined on you in personal capacity under RTI Act. This is not just an administrative duty, which you can bunk with impunity. Your indifference is affecting my fundamental right guaranteed under article 19.1.a of Constitution of India.
4. I am sure, service rules of your dept/organization must have classified transgression of law of land and breaching fundamental rights of a citizen by public servants, as gross misconduct. By not deciding on my appeal within stipulated time frame, you are rendering yourself liable and answerable to govt/management through departmental action.
5. I am aware FAAs hardly care for decisions of Information Commissions. None the less, I invite your kind attention to following CIC decisions:
No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001352/8407 dated 05-07-2010
No.CIC/SG/A/2010/000085/6895Adjunct dated 05-07-2010
No. CIC/AT/A/2008/00290 dated 17-07-2008
No.CIC/AD/A/2010/000952 dated August 18, 2010 and also
office memorandum No. 10/23/2007-IR dated 09-07-2007 of DoPT,
Govt of India, New Delhi and judgements in following petitions in the matter of delay:
Writ petition No. 8348/2009 in High Court of Bombay [Aurangabad bench] dated 25-01-2010.
SLP No. 6584/2010 in High Court of Gujarat dated 01-09-2010
6.I also draw your kind attention to the fact that you are rendering your organization/department accountable under The Consumer Protection Act 1986, since I am consumer under this act as decided by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi on 28-05-2009 in Revision Petition Nr. 1975 OF 2005.
7. I humbly append important extract from judgement of Hon’ble SUPREME COURT OF INDIA in Lucknow Development Authority V/s. M.K. Gupta [CITATION: 1994 AIR 787 1994 SCC (1) 243 JT 1993 (6) 307 1993 SCALE (4)370}
“Under our Constitution sovereignty vests in the people. Every limb of the constitutional machinery is obliged to be people oriented. No functionary in exercise of statutory power can claim immunity, except to the extent protected by the statute itself. Public authorities acting in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions oppressively are accountable for their behaviour before authorities created under the statute like the commission or the courts entrusted with responsibility of maintaining the rule of law. “
8. Please speed up your decision in your own interest.
Yours faithfully,
_______________
Copy by post to:
Head of Govt. dept or organization
-I request you to initiate [or order] departmental action against FAA for transgression of law passed by Parliament, which must be a gross misconduct under your service rules. For common men and women, it is shocking to witness that public servants are having such scant respect for laws of the country and fundamental rights of citizens.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Unhealthy Trend at Gujarat Information Commission
Date: 12-10-2010 by email
To,
State Chief Information Commissioner,
Gujarat Information Commission,
Bureau of Eco and Statistics Bldg, 1st floor
Sector 18, Gandhinagar, Gujarat 382018
Email: gscic@gujarat.gov.in
Hon’ble Sir,
Subject: Remanding Appeals / Complaints--Suggestion
On perusal of recent decisions of the Hon’ble Commission I have witnessed a trend in large number of cases, where by second appeals or complaints are remanded back to First Appellate Authorities [FAAs], even when appellants had filed first appeals and waited for at least 30 or 45 days + 10 days [both side postal time], before preferring second appeals or complaints. While remanding, explanation of FAAs is not sought for not having decided first appeal within stipulated time. Some of the recent decisions are:
1. Appeal No. 1098/2010-11 decided on 15-07-2010
2. Appeal No. 1181/2010-11 decided on 20-07-2010
3. Appeal No. 1240/2008-09 decided on 16-08-2010
4. Appeal No. 1284/2010-11 decided on 30-07-2010
Under such circumstances, FAAs will be encouraged not to decide on first appeal and thus compel appellants to file second appeals or complaints, since FAAs know that Hon’ble Commission will at the most remand back to FAAs only, after 3 to 6 months, without fixing accountability for not performing their duties under the Act. In addition to this, appellants are put to inconvenience, expenses, visits, frustration and wastage of time and money in approaching Hon’ble Commission and again to FAAs. This style pampers ego of FAAs and dignity of common men is lowered down in a democratic country. Appellants will once again be required to approach Hon’ble Commission if they are not satisfied with decisions of FAAs. This amounts to merry-go-round [pillar to post] bureaucratic procedure well known in India, which is antithetical to letter and spirit of RTI. This procedure not only delays supply of information and causes hardship to appellants, it also increases avoidable work load of already overburdened Hon’ble Commission.
I am aware that decisions of CIC are not legally bound on SICs, but can act as a guide and may lead to best practices worth emulation by SICs. I therefore append below details of few recent decisions of CIC against non-performing FAAs:
1. No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001352/8407 dated 05-07-2010
2. No.CIC/SG/A/2010/000085/6895Adjunct dated 05-07-2010
3. No. CIC/AT/A/2008/00290 dated 17-07-2008
4. No.CIC/AD/A/2010/000952 dated August 18, 2010
While I respect decisions of Hon’ble GIC, which has to its credit many landmark and path breaking decisions in the past, I humbly suggest that time has come when at least FAAs’ explanation should be sought for dereliction of duties enjoined under RTI Act, while remanding appeals/complaints as is being followed by CIC. Hon’ble Commission may recommend disciplinary action in cases of bluntant transgression of RTI Act by FAAs. Two-three sentences in decision order will make FAAs responsible. This will have positive and cascading effect on attitude of FAAs, who must be studying trend in decisions of Hon’ble Commission. This will reduce congestion at GIC, reduce time and cost for appellants and will infuse sense of accountability in FAAs, at least for RTI.
I am sure yourgoodselves will take my suggestion in a positive manner for the benefit of information seekers of this State.
Yours faithfully,
J. P. Shah
To,
State Chief Information Commissioner,
Gujarat Information Commission,
Bureau of Eco and Statistics Bldg, 1st floor
Sector 18, Gandhinagar, Gujarat 382018
Email: gscic@gujarat.gov.in
Hon’ble Sir,
Subject: Remanding Appeals / Complaints--Suggestion
On perusal of recent decisions of the Hon’ble Commission I have witnessed a trend in large number of cases, where by second appeals or complaints are remanded back to First Appellate Authorities [FAAs], even when appellants had filed first appeals and waited for at least 30 or 45 days + 10 days [both side postal time], before preferring second appeals or complaints. While remanding, explanation of FAAs is not sought for not having decided first appeal within stipulated time. Some of the recent decisions are:
1. Appeal No. 1098/2010-11 decided on 15-07-2010
2. Appeal No. 1181/2010-11 decided on 20-07-2010
3. Appeal No. 1240/2008-09 decided on 16-08-2010
4. Appeal No. 1284/2010-11 decided on 30-07-2010
Under such circumstances, FAAs will be encouraged not to decide on first appeal and thus compel appellants to file second appeals or complaints, since FAAs know that Hon’ble Commission will at the most remand back to FAAs only, after 3 to 6 months, without fixing accountability for not performing their duties under the Act. In addition to this, appellants are put to inconvenience, expenses, visits, frustration and wastage of time and money in approaching Hon’ble Commission and again to FAAs. This style pampers ego of FAAs and dignity of common men is lowered down in a democratic country. Appellants will once again be required to approach Hon’ble Commission if they are not satisfied with decisions of FAAs. This amounts to merry-go-round [pillar to post] bureaucratic procedure well known in India, which is antithetical to letter and spirit of RTI. This procedure not only delays supply of information and causes hardship to appellants, it also increases avoidable work load of already overburdened Hon’ble Commission.
I am aware that decisions of CIC are not legally bound on SICs, but can act as a guide and may lead to best practices worth emulation by SICs. I therefore append below details of few recent decisions of CIC against non-performing FAAs:
1. No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001352/8407 dated 05-07-2010
2. No.CIC/SG/A/2010/000085/6895Adjunct dated 05-07-2010
3. No. CIC/AT/A/2008/00290 dated 17-07-2008
4. No.CIC/AD/A/2010/000952 dated August 18, 2010
While I respect decisions of Hon’ble GIC, which has to its credit many landmark and path breaking decisions in the past, I humbly suggest that time has come when at least FAAs’ explanation should be sought for dereliction of duties enjoined under RTI Act, while remanding appeals/complaints as is being followed by CIC. Hon’ble Commission may recommend disciplinary action in cases of bluntant transgression of RTI Act by FAAs. Two-three sentences in decision order will make FAAs responsible. This will have positive and cascading effect on attitude of FAAs, who must be studying trend in decisions of Hon’ble Commission. This will reduce congestion at GIC, reduce time and cost for appellants and will infuse sense of accountability in FAAs, at least for RTI.
I am sure yourgoodselves will take my suggestion in a positive manner for the benefit of information seekers of this State.
Yours faithfully,
J. P. Shah
Sunday, October 10, 2010
SUGGESTION TO RBI
Date: 30-06-2010 by email & Courier
Chief General Manager,
Reserve Bank of India,
Customer Service Dept,
Central Office,
Amar Bldg, P. M. Road, Fort,
Mumbai 400 001
Email: helpdoc@rbi.org.in
Respected Sir,
Subject: Suggestion - Customer Service Committee.
I refer to press note No 2009-2010/1712 dated 16-06-2010 and thank RBI for initiating steps to improve customer service in banks.
02. I being proactively interested in improving customer satisfaction would like to humbly submit following suggestions on customer service in banks.
03. I am attaching herewith my letter dated 17-08-2009 addressed to RBI for your kind reference. It was scaled up to Joint Director [Banking], MoF, Govt. of India. In addition to this, I offer my following suggestions:
04. A] Though RBI has made its directives on ATM failed transactions more customer friendly, its implementation on pro-actively paying penalty beyond 12 days is less than satisfactory. I suggest that if a bank does not credit penalty amount of its own along with amount of failed transaction, bank should be required to pay Rs.150/- per day beyond 12 days’ delay instead of Rs.100/-, if customer is required to represent for penalty amount.
B] Customer awareness on this provision is negligible. All ATMs should carry details of this directive prominently near ATM machines for creating awareness in public. RBI needs to release advertisements. Banks may release leaflets in news papers. Statements of account and covering letters of ATM cards should also contain such information.
C] Facility of complaint for failed transactions by sms and email should be arranged, as written complaints may take time, specially if account holder is out of station, where transaction fails. Separate mobile number and email ID should be provided to customers with ATM cards.
D] Alternatively Committee may consider following suggestion:
Some Banks have automated payment of failed transaction penalty by system itself. In this case bank staff can manipulate date of receipt of complaint from customer and bunk penalty or part of it. Banks must be getting information of such failed transactions within a day through system. Hence it is advisable to amend rule that instead of paying penalty after 12 days of receipt of claim of customers, banks of its own should pay penalty if claim is not credited within 12 days from date of failure of transaction. 12 days can be made 15 days if need be. This will solve all operational issues, manipulations by bank staff and repeated intervention of customers.
E] RBI should seek confirmation every six months from bank signed by two of General Managers confirming that penalty of failed transactions have been paid as per RBI circular and no penalty is unpaid as on date of certificate.
05. At present services of Banking Ombudsman are free and hence complainant may not be a consumer under The Consumer Protection Act 1986. To enable complainant to move Consumer Forum/Commissions against deficiency in service [other than quasi judicial decision of Ombudsman] at office of Banking Ombudsman, a nominal fee of Rs.50/- should be charged for filing complaints with it. This will make working of staff of office of banking ombudsman more alert, polite and efficient, as office of ombudsman can be pulled up in Consumer Forum/Commission.
06. RTI is also a part of interface with public and customers of banks.
Following banks have yet not nominated their branch heads as ACPIO under RTI Act 2005:
United Bank of India, Syndicate Bank, Bank of Baroda, UCO Bank, Punjab & Sind Bank, Union Bank of India, State Bank of Patiala, Indian Bank, Corporation Bank, Bank of Maharashtra, Allahabad Bank, and Vijaya Bank.
It makes it difficult for semi literate citizens to locate the office where RTI application is to be submitted or mailed. Normally branches hide notice boards containing details of ACPIO/CPIO, behind posters so that customers cannot read these details. Some branches do not display such information at all in customer lobby. When oral enquiries are made, officers/managers pretend that they do not know any thing about RTI etc. Hence all banks should have uniform nomination of branch heads as ACPIO.
07. In majority of customer service related problems, where employees/officers have harassed and insulted customers [specially common men], by flouting RBI and HO directives, the errant staff are not pulled up and usually system tries to save such staff [like Ruchika case]. This gives boost to such staff as nothing happens to them for enjoying predicament of bank customers. They continue to harass customers with impunity. This is more so in public sector banks at branch level.
I suggest that at least 25 to 30 percent of all complaints should be scrutinized every year by a committee of senior executives at HO level and banks must take strong punitive and corrective action against all such staff who have unduly harassed small customers. Some “outsiders” [like representatives of NGOs of Consumer Protection, management consultants in CRM, educated senior clients of other banks] may also be thought of.
Incidentally, I append below relevant paragraph from e-Times of India dated 08-06-2010 [Ahmedabad edition] for your kind reference on “Outsiders”:
“As part of making the bureaucracy more responsive, a system of outside assessment is now in place. Annual confidential reports (ACRs) are examined by committees of ex-officials who can recommend a change in grading. Though the committees' powers are limited, the move is aimed at ensuring assessment is not an in-house affair………..”
The very existence of such a process will be deterrent for errant officers from indulging in harassing public [mainly due to inflated ego, power [?] of chair and security cover provided by management and unions] with impunity. A note should also be made in annual performance reports of such officers.
08. Whenever judgements of courts and consumer commissions/forums are delivered against bank, it should be made mandatory for banks to conduct in-depth enquiry and punish decision makers whose decisions could not be sustained in courts/consumer commissions/forums. This will decongest courts also and make decision making process at bank level more just and fair. This is what our Hon’ble Prime Minister and Hon’ble Minister for Law and Justice call “Justice in administration”. Reference is also invited to judgement dated 30-10-2009 of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in SLP[C] 29852 OF 2009 [CC NO.11768] and National Litigation Policy recently declared by Government of India.
09.Banks can also consider appointing retired judge of High or Supreme Court or retired President of NCDRC/State Consumer Commission or retired senior executive of banks as their internal [in-house] ombudsman for the bank itself, who can be approached by customers in all the matters of dispute [except sanction of loans but including delay in loan decisions]. Present banking ombudsman of RBI confines to limited area of customer service only.
This will make resolution of grievances fast, cost effective and will improve customer satisfaction in addition to reducing burden on courts. This internal ombudsman can be paid per case. Present nodal officers [like vigilance officers] mostly are not impartial and try to protect officers and bank, compelling aggrieved customer to resort to banking ombudsman or consumer forums. An element of external/outsider and unconnected element at each bank level, in resolution of customer grievance, will make a difference.
10. Some private banks and mobile companies have facility of automatic scaling up of complaints. Most public sector banks do not have this type of facility, which needs to be introduced for written and e-filed complaints.
11. Some banks [like SBI] provide email IDs of all branches/offices on their websites, while most of banks do not have this information. Some banks do not provide email IDs of field administrative offices [regional/zonal/circle offices] also. Customers find it difficult to send emails to branches or field administrative offices directly. Hence all banks should be advised to have email IDs of all CBS branches and also field administrative offices on their websites.
12. Citizens should be allowed and encouraged to have audio recorder/ spy pen/mobile with recording facility with them, when visiting banks or discussing with bank staff. RBI has permitted such recording facility during visits of recovery agents. This will make bank employees courteous and they will not be in a position to mislead the public. Citizens will be able to substantiate facts in their complaints.
13. Barring president of Depositors’ Association, all other dignitaries on committee seem to be from Govt. sector. Even govt. approved NGOs working for decades in the field of Consumer Protection have not been included. Private sector banks are also not represented. Thus approach of RBI is governmental and not holistic in the matter of customer service in banks. RBI should welcome participative democracy at least in the matters affecting citizens directly. It may get some valuable out-of-box suggestions and solutions from non-govt. members/NGOs also.
14. I have experienced that RBI itself is not serious for getting its own circulars implemented by banks, even in the matter of customer service or illegal hostile methods for recovery of small loans. It does not reply or try to pass on the bucks to others for enforcing compliance of its circulars. This attitude of RBI needs overhaul if it really means business. Citizens are not interested in tons of circulars and reports on customer service, but their effective implementation at branch level. Now some vigilant citizens are forcing banks to implement directives of RBI through RTI punch. The duty that RBI should discharge, is now being taken over by such alert citizens. This issue requires serious introspection and remediation by RBI.
15. Nearly a dozen charters, codes, policy declarations made by banks on their websites, have not made any material change in customer service at branch level. Majority of staff and branch mangers do not even know of it or at least pretend so. These are not enforceable in courts/consumer forums. Majority customers do not also know of such averments of banks. This requires revisit. Some of them should be made enforceable at law as a matter of right. At present it is charity by bank staff.
16. Period of filing complaint with Ombudsman should be extended to two years. Normally customers first represent to branch and on not being satisfied with reply or no reply he resorts to RTI. He requires at least one year to get information and papers under RTI Act 2005 [including second appeal to CIC]. Thereafter he again represents to branch and then scales up to RO/HO, based on information received. It takes 6 to 9 months. Thus by 21st month he gets final decision of the bank. Hence period of one year from first level decision, is too short to effectively present a complaint before Ombudsman.
17. Tracking system should be introduced for complaints with Ombudsman, as is available with Central Information Commission and Passport Offices. Complainant should be periodically informed of status and progress of complaints, by banks through SMS, since villagers now have mobiles.
18. On 12-05-2010 I visited CPIO/Superintendent of Post Offices [SPO], HPO, Junagadh. I came to know that they have a system whereby an officer from office of Chief PMG, Delhi or Ahmedabad can at any time of the day request SPO to show live on computer to that officer actual working of any dept or floor of the building, including customer lobbies, staff working etc. Officer at Delhi/Ahmedabad can record entire position. He also passes immediate instructions to correct deficiency. Officer in Delhi or Ahmedabad has details of sitting of staff of entire post office. The officer raises queries on long queues, dirty look, absence of staff etc. I think this best practice needs attention of RBI for replication by it in its offices and few large bank branches.
19. Installing few CCTVs in bank branches [not only at entrance] will make lot of difference not only for security but customer service.
20. For a common man, it is difficult to decide which RBI circulars are mandatory, informational, advisory etc. I had filed RTI application on 27-10-09 [RIA 1377/2009-10] with RBI, but reply was ambiguous, since there is no clarity at RBI level on this issue. I suggest that RBI circulars on customer service at least, should be prominently marked on its first page as to mandatory, informational, advisory etc. This will be useful for general public.
21. Language of RBI circulars should be such that it can be understood by a graduate who has studied in English/Hindi. Most of branch mangers also fail to grasp RBI circulars due to jargons and technical language used. Most banks have to simplify contents to make their branch managers pickup contents and implement it. Now that common man is also directly reading RBI circulars on net, language should be simple, specially of circulars meant for common users of bank services. Every such circular should at least contain point-wise operative gist which common man can easily grasp.
22. All banks should be advised to upload circulars connected to customer services on their websites, as is being done by RBI. This is otherwise also mandatory as per section 4.1.b.v of RTI Act 2005. Most of banks compel applicants to resort to CIC for copies of their circulars affecting common customers of bank.
23. There is at present no provision for payment of compensation for harassment, damages, delay, mental and emotional agony, insults, loss, expenses under Banking Ombudsman Scheme 2006 [except for credit card complaints]. It is necessary that scheme should include payment of compensation up to Rs.1.00 lakh in case of all complaints. Since there is no such provision, aggrieved customers resort to Consumer Forums, instead of Ombudsman. This will prove to be deterrent to errant bank officers, from whom bank will or should ultimately recover the amount.
24. If on any matter there is decision of State CDRC or NCDRC, then that judgement should be followed for all similar claims at bank level itself, rather than forcing the aggrieved customer to pass through tedious process of getting justice through Ombudsman/Consumer Forum.
25. Banks and RBI should have a system whereby customer can register with them, so that he gets copies of all circulars on a particular subject [specially customer service] by email. This is now possible with IT, where in group emails can be sent instantly. This will save time and inconvenience in visiting websites and searching for circulars, issued by a bank or RBI on a particular subject.
26. Assessment of quality of service at branch level:
At present, banks are relying mainly on internal audit reports to evaluate quality of service at the branch level. It mainly includes filling in few forms casually and as a routine matter. Administrative offices hardly scrutinize such reports on customer service, which are cosmetic in nature.
I suggest that bank HO should prepare a panel of service quality assessors from public, [specially retired persons from government, banks, insurance, telecom, military, management consultants in customer care etc and a team of two of them should visit 2-3 branches anonymously without revealing their identities, as a common man to open account or borrow or exchange notes or purchasing demand draft, lodging complaint, observing time limits, cleanliness, courtesy of the staff etc etc. Selection of branches for a team of 2 assessors should be done by a senior executive not connected with customer service dept at HO for a state or region. He should maintain total confidentiality. Thus every year 10-15% branches of the bank should be covered by various teams. Every year team members should be changed. The assessors should submit detailed report of their live experience at the branch to HO. They may be reimbursed suitably. Even RBI can follow this type of assessment for its own services and services of other banks.
This type of system was followed by public centric kings in olden days. It will factually reveal quality of service being offered at branch level in routine manner. I have found that staff offers better service and courtesies to customers when audits are in progress and once it is over, things dramatically change. Most of the customers who have problem just walk to some other bank without making complaint or giving feed back. Public sector banks do not have system of contacting customers who severed relationship with banks through independent agency/staff from controlling office for their feed back.
The suggestion if implemented will improve day to day customer service on the counter as staff will have apprehension that the person may be assessor from HO and it will give vital feedback to HO to fine tune its policies and procedures.
27. The press-note contains facility for email, but it is difficult to have suggestions running into 10-12 pages emailed through it. Attachment facility is also not available in the link. RBI should have provided separate email ID for getting suggestions.
28. I suggest that per day penalty provision should be prescribed for delay in communication of decision on loan applications, like the one provided for failed ATM transactions. Govt. of Delhi have recently mandated for penalty per day for employees for delays in few depts. This will be extended to all other departments over a period of time.
29. Normally in Govt. offices, importance is given to “WHO made the suggestion” rather than “WHAT is the suggestion”. I am sure Committee will take into account my submission in a positive and open manner. I have invested time, energy and money for this presentation, only to improve customer satisfaction.
Yours faithfully,
J.P. Shah
Encls: as above
“...We believe that empowerment of the common person is the surest and the safest way to preservation of wealth.” –RBI Website
…In sum, were professionals in the financial sector legally right, but only legally right and morally wrong? --Dr. D. Subbarao, Governor, Reserve Bank of Ind
Chief General Manager,
Reserve Bank of India,
Customer Service Dept,
Central Office,
Amar Bldg, P. M. Road, Fort,
Mumbai 400 001
Email: helpdoc@rbi.org.in
Respected Sir,
Subject: Suggestion - Customer Service Committee.
I refer to press note No 2009-2010/1712 dated 16-06-2010 and thank RBI for initiating steps to improve customer service in banks.
02. I being proactively interested in improving customer satisfaction would like to humbly submit following suggestions on customer service in banks.
03. I am attaching herewith my letter dated 17-08-2009 addressed to RBI for your kind reference. It was scaled up to Joint Director [Banking], MoF, Govt. of India. In addition to this, I offer my following suggestions:
04. A] Though RBI has made its directives on ATM failed transactions more customer friendly, its implementation on pro-actively paying penalty beyond 12 days is less than satisfactory. I suggest that if a bank does not credit penalty amount of its own along with amount of failed transaction, bank should be required to pay Rs.150/- per day beyond 12 days’ delay instead of Rs.100/-, if customer is required to represent for penalty amount.
B] Customer awareness on this provision is negligible. All ATMs should carry details of this directive prominently near ATM machines for creating awareness in public. RBI needs to release advertisements. Banks may release leaflets in news papers. Statements of account and covering letters of ATM cards should also contain such information.
C] Facility of complaint for failed transactions by sms and email should be arranged, as written complaints may take time, specially if account holder is out of station, where transaction fails. Separate mobile number and email ID should be provided to customers with ATM cards.
D] Alternatively Committee may consider following suggestion:
Some Banks have automated payment of failed transaction penalty by system itself. In this case bank staff can manipulate date of receipt of complaint from customer and bunk penalty or part of it. Banks must be getting information of such failed transactions within a day through system. Hence it is advisable to amend rule that instead of paying penalty after 12 days of receipt of claim of customers, banks of its own should pay penalty if claim is not credited within 12 days from date of failure of transaction. 12 days can be made 15 days if need be. This will solve all operational issues, manipulations by bank staff and repeated intervention of customers.
E] RBI should seek confirmation every six months from bank signed by two of General Managers confirming that penalty of failed transactions have been paid as per RBI circular and no penalty is unpaid as on date of certificate.
05. At present services of Banking Ombudsman are free and hence complainant may not be a consumer under The Consumer Protection Act 1986. To enable complainant to move Consumer Forum/Commissions against deficiency in service [other than quasi judicial decision of Ombudsman] at office of Banking Ombudsman, a nominal fee of Rs.50/- should be charged for filing complaints with it. This will make working of staff of office of banking ombudsman more alert, polite and efficient, as office of ombudsman can be pulled up in Consumer Forum/Commission.
06. RTI is also a part of interface with public and customers of banks.
Following banks have yet not nominated their branch heads as ACPIO under RTI Act 2005:
United Bank of India, Syndicate Bank, Bank of Baroda, UCO Bank, Punjab & Sind Bank, Union Bank of India, State Bank of Patiala, Indian Bank, Corporation Bank, Bank of Maharashtra, Allahabad Bank, and Vijaya Bank.
It makes it difficult for semi literate citizens to locate the office where RTI application is to be submitted or mailed. Normally branches hide notice boards containing details of ACPIO/CPIO, behind posters so that customers cannot read these details. Some branches do not display such information at all in customer lobby. When oral enquiries are made, officers/managers pretend that they do not know any thing about RTI etc. Hence all banks should have uniform nomination of branch heads as ACPIO.
07. In majority of customer service related problems, where employees/officers have harassed and insulted customers [specially common men], by flouting RBI and HO directives, the errant staff are not pulled up and usually system tries to save such staff [like Ruchika case]. This gives boost to such staff as nothing happens to them for enjoying predicament of bank customers. They continue to harass customers with impunity. This is more so in public sector banks at branch level.
I suggest that at least 25 to 30 percent of all complaints should be scrutinized every year by a committee of senior executives at HO level and banks must take strong punitive and corrective action against all such staff who have unduly harassed small customers. Some “outsiders” [like representatives of NGOs of Consumer Protection, management consultants in CRM, educated senior clients of other banks] may also be thought of.
Incidentally, I append below relevant paragraph from e-Times of India dated 08-06-2010 [Ahmedabad edition] for your kind reference on “Outsiders”:
“As part of making the bureaucracy more responsive, a system of outside assessment is now in place. Annual confidential reports (ACRs) are examined by committees of ex-officials who can recommend a change in grading. Though the committees' powers are limited, the move is aimed at ensuring assessment is not an in-house affair………..”
The very existence of such a process will be deterrent for errant officers from indulging in harassing public [mainly due to inflated ego, power [?] of chair and security cover provided by management and unions] with impunity. A note should also be made in annual performance reports of such officers.
08. Whenever judgements of courts and consumer commissions/forums are delivered against bank, it should be made mandatory for banks to conduct in-depth enquiry and punish decision makers whose decisions could not be sustained in courts/consumer commissions/forums. This will decongest courts also and make decision making process at bank level more just and fair. This is what our Hon’ble Prime Minister and Hon’ble Minister for Law and Justice call “Justice in administration”. Reference is also invited to judgement dated 30-10-2009 of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in SLP[C] 29852 OF 2009 [CC NO.11768] and National Litigation Policy recently declared by Government of India.
09.Banks can also consider appointing retired judge of High or Supreme Court or retired President of NCDRC/State Consumer Commission or retired senior executive of banks as their internal [in-house] ombudsman for the bank itself, who can be approached by customers in all the matters of dispute [except sanction of loans but including delay in loan decisions]. Present banking ombudsman of RBI confines to limited area of customer service only.
This will make resolution of grievances fast, cost effective and will improve customer satisfaction in addition to reducing burden on courts. This internal ombudsman can be paid per case. Present nodal officers [like vigilance officers] mostly are not impartial and try to protect officers and bank, compelling aggrieved customer to resort to banking ombudsman or consumer forums. An element of external/outsider and unconnected element at each bank level, in resolution of customer grievance, will make a difference.
10. Some private banks and mobile companies have facility of automatic scaling up of complaints. Most public sector banks do not have this type of facility, which needs to be introduced for written and e-filed complaints.
11. Some banks [like SBI] provide email IDs of all branches/offices on their websites, while most of banks do not have this information. Some banks do not provide email IDs of field administrative offices [regional/zonal/circle offices] also. Customers find it difficult to send emails to branches or field administrative offices directly. Hence all banks should be advised to have email IDs of all CBS branches and also field administrative offices on their websites.
12. Citizens should be allowed and encouraged to have audio recorder/ spy pen/mobile with recording facility with them, when visiting banks or discussing with bank staff. RBI has permitted such recording facility during visits of recovery agents. This will make bank employees courteous and they will not be in a position to mislead the public. Citizens will be able to substantiate facts in their complaints.
13. Barring president of Depositors’ Association, all other dignitaries on committee seem to be from Govt. sector. Even govt. approved NGOs working for decades in the field of Consumer Protection have not been included. Private sector banks are also not represented. Thus approach of RBI is governmental and not holistic in the matter of customer service in banks. RBI should welcome participative democracy at least in the matters affecting citizens directly. It may get some valuable out-of-box suggestions and solutions from non-govt. members/NGOs also.
14. I have experienced that RBI itself is not serious for getting its own circulars implemented by banks, even in the matter of customer service or illegal hostile methods for recovery of small loans. It does not reply or try to pass on the bucks to others for enforcing compliance of its circulars. This attitude of RBI needs overhaul if it really means business. Citizens are not interested in tons of circulars and reports on customer service, but their effective implementation at branch level. Now some vigilant citizens are forcing banks to implement directives of RBI through RTI punch. The duty that RBI should discharge, is now being taken over by such alert citizens. This issue requires serious introspection and remediation by RBI.
15. Nearly a dozen charters, codes, policy declarations made by banks on their websites, have not made any material change in customer service at branch level. Majority of staff and branch mangers do not even know of it or at least pretend so. These are not enforceable in courts/consumer forums. Majority customers do not also know of such averments of banks. This requires revisit. Some of them should be made enforceable at law as a matter of right. At present it is charity by bank staff.
16. Period of filing complaint with Ombudsman should be extended to two years. Normally customers first represent to branch and on not being satisfied with reply or no reply he resorts to RTI. He requires at least one year to get information and papers under RTI Act 2005 [including second appeal to CIC]. Thereafter he again represents to branch and then scales up to RO/HO, based on information received. It takes 6 to 9 months. Thus by 21st month he gets final decision of the bank. Hence period of one year from first level decision, is too short to effectively present a complaint before Ombudsman.
17. Tracking system should be introduced for complaints with Ombudsman, as is available with Central Information Commission and Passport Offices. Complainant should be periodically informed of status and progress of complaints, by banks through SMS, since villagers now have mobiles.
18. On 12-05-2010 I visited CPIO/Superintendent of Post Offices [SPO], HPO, Junagadh. I came to know that they have a system whereby an officer from office of Chief PMG, Delhi or Ahmedabad can at any time of the day request SPO to show live on computer to that officer actual working of any dept or floor of the building, including customer lobbies, staff working etc. Officer at Delhi/Ahmedabad can record entire position. He also passes immediate instructions to correct deficiency. Officer in Delhi or Ahmedabad has details of sitting of staff of entire post office. The officer raises queries on long queues, dirty look, absence of staff etc. I think this best practice needs attention of RBI for replication by it in its offices and few large bank branches.
19. Installing few CCTVs in bank branches [not only at entrance] will make lot of difference not only for security but customer service.
20. For a common man, it is difficult to decide which RBI circulars are mandatory, informational, advisory etc. I had filed RTI application on 27-10-09 [RIA 1377/2009-10] with RBI, but reply was ambiguous, since there is no clarity at RBI level on this issue. I suggest that RBI circulars on customer service at least, should be prominently marked on its first page as to mandatory, informational, advisory etc. This will be useful for general public.
21. Language of RBI circulars should be such that it can be understood by a graduate who has studied in English/Hindi. Most of branch mangers also fail to grasp RBI circulars due to jargons and technical language used. Most banks have to simplify contents to make their branch managers pickup contents and implement it. Now that common man is also directly reading RBI circulars on net, language should be simple, specially of circulars meant for common users of bank services. Every such circular should at least contain point-wise operative gist which common man can easily grasp.
22. All banks should be advised to upload circulars connected to customer services on their websites, as is being done by RBI. This is otherwise also mandatory as per section 4.1.b.v of RTI Act 2005. Most of banks compel applicants to resort to CIC for copies of their circulars affecting common customers of bank.
23. There is at present no provision for payment of compensation for harassment, damages, delay, mental and emotional agony, insults, loss, expenses under Banking Ombudsman Scheme 2006 [except for credit card complaints]. It is necessary that scheme should include payment of compensation up to Rs.1.00 lakh in case of all complaints. Since there is no such provision, aggrieved customers resort to Consumer Forums, instead of Ombudsman. This will prove to be deterrent to errant bank officers, from whom bank will or should ultimately recover the amount.
24. If on any matter there is decision of State CDRC or NCDRC, then that judgement should be followed for all similar claims at bank level itself, rather than forcing the aggrieved customer to pass through tedious process of getting justice through Ombudsman/Consumer Forum.
25. Banks and RBI should have a system whereby customer can register with them, so that he gets copies of all circulars on a particular subject [specially customer service] by email. This is now possible with IT, where in group emails can be sent instantly. This will save time and inconvenience in visiting websites and searching for circulars, issued by a bank or RBI on a particular subject.
26. Assessment of quality of service at branch level:
At present, banks are relying mainly on internal audit reports to evaluate quality of service at the branch level. It mainly includes filling in few forms casually and as a routine matter. Administrative offices hardly scrutinize such reports on customer service, which are cosmetic in nature.
I suggest that bank HO should prepare a panel of service quality assessors from public, [specially retired persons from government, banks, insurance, telecom, military, management consultants in customer care etc and a team of two of them should visit 2-3 branches anonymously without revealing their identities, as a common man to open account or borrow or exchange notes or purchasing demand draft, lodging complaint, observing time limits, cleanliness, courtesy of the staff etc etc. Selection of branches for a team of 2 assessors should be done by a senior executive not connected with customer service dept at HO for a state or region. He should maintain total confidentiality. Thus every year 10-15% branches of the bank should be covered by various teams. Every year team members should be changed. The assessors should submit detailed report of their live experience at the branch to HO. They may be reimbursed suitably. Even RBI can follow this type of assessment for its own services and services of other banks.
This type of system was followed by public centric kings in olden days. It will factually reveal quality of service being offered at branch level in routine manner. I have found that staff offers better service and courtesies to customers when audits are in progress and once it is over, things dramatically change. Most of the customers who have problem just walk to some other bank without making complaint or giving feed back. Public sector banks do not have system of contacting customers who severed relationship with banks through independent agency/staff from controlling office for their feed back.
The suggestion if implemented will improve day to day customer service on the counter as staff will have apprehension that the person may be assessor from HO and it will give vital feedback to HO to fine tune its policies and procedures.
27. The press-note contains facility for email, but it is difficult to have suggestions running into 10-12 pages emailed through it. Attachment facility is also not available in the link. RBI should have provided separate email ID for getting suggestions.
28. I suggest that per day penalty provision should be prescribed for delay in communication of decision on loan applications, like the one provided for failed ATM transactions. Govt. of Delhi have recently mandated for penalty per day for employees for delays in few depts. This will be extended to all other departments over a period of time.
29. Normally in Govt. offices, importance is given to “WHO made the suggestion” rather than “WHAT is the suggestion”. I am sure Committee will take into account my submission in a positive and open manner. I have invested time, energy and money for this presentation, only to improve customer satisfaction.
Yours faithfully,
J.P. Shah
Encls: as above
“...We believe that empowerment of the common person is the surest and the safest way to preservation of wealth.” –RBI Website
…In sum, were professionals in the financial sector legally right, but only legally right and morally wrong? --Dr. D. Subbarao, Governor, Reserve Bank of Ind
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)