PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

Consumer Complaint No.- 171/2024

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. SadanandaTripathy, Member,

Dr.Sribanta Kumar Dash, aged about 42 yrs.

S/O-Late Golek Dash,

R/O-Shantinagar, PO-Budharaja,

Dist-Sambalpur-768004, Odisha.                                      ……….......Complainant.

Vrs.

1. The State Bank of India.

Represented through its Managing Director, State Bank of India House,

Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021.

2. The Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Budharaja Branch,
3.  
4. Shri, SrinibasPatra,

S/O-Shri Ram Prasad Patra, AIMS College, Pardhiapali,

Dist-Sambalpur.                                                    ....……….Opp. Parties

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant         :- Sri. R.N.Debata & Associates
2. For the O.P. No.1            & 2        :- Sri. B. Meher, Adv.
3. For the O.P.No.3                :- Sri. S.Patra, Adv.

Date of Filing:21.05.2024,  Date of Hearing :20.08.2024,  Date of Judgement :23.09.2024

Presented by Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, PRESIDENT.

1. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant is having SB A/C No. 31970723923 with O.P.No.2 Branch and it is alleged that the O.Ps without consent of the Complainant disclosed the personal transactions of the Complainant.

On 07.11.2019 at 13:42:40 hours a print out of statement of accounts for the period 01.10.2014 to 01.03.2017 in respect of S/B A/C No. 31970723923 was prepared by O.P.No.2 and handed over to a stranger without the knowledge of Complainant. The proforma O.P.No.3 on 19.12.2019 filed the account statement by assigning his signature and seal as “Secretary, B.S.E.C. Trust in I.D. Case No. 06/2018 in the Labour Court, Sambalpur marked as Ext. 7 on 09.11.2023. The O.P. No.3 in the said court stated that one of hid staff Siddheswar Satapathy proceed the documents from Bank. Soddheswar Satapathy has not been examined in I.D. Case No. 6/2018 by the O.P.No.3.

The O.Ps are deficient in their service by disclosing personal information of the Complainant. A pleader notice was also served to the O.P.No.1 & 2 but no any reply given. Being agrieved complaint was filed.

2. The O.P.No.1 & 2 Bank submitted that this Commission has no jurisdiction as the case not covers deficiency in service. It is obligatory and mandatory for the O.Ps not to disclose any Secrecy of account without the consent of customers expect to persons legally authorised.

After receipt of notice in this case the O.P.No.2 reported the matter before I.I.C. Ainthapali P.S. vide station Dairy Entry No. 009 dated 29.06.2024. At no point of time the O.Ps disclosed the account of Complainant to any unauthorised person. The Complainant might have shared the statement with others wantonly to claim inexorbitant compensation through the Commission. The complaint is malicious, fale and fabricated.

3. The O.P.No.3 submitted that the account statement of the Complainant has been filed before Labour Court in its institutional capacity. The documents were exbited by the Complainant during cross-examination of O.P.No.3 as ext. 7 which is in continuation of the exhibits of the Complainant who was examined as workman. This Commission has no jurisdiction to examine the legality and propriety of any documents filed before the Labour Court as there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice exists. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. Documents filed by the Complainant.

1. Copy of statement of A/C No. 31970723923 Budharja Branch, State Bank of India.
2. Copy of Deposition of Srinibas Patra in I.D. Case No. 06/2018 before P.O.Labour Court, Sambalpur.
3. Copy of pleader  notice dated 03.05.2024 issued by Sri. Bidhadhar Sahu.
4. Postal tracking reports.

The O.P.No.1 & 2 submitted:

1. Copy of station Diary G.D. No. 009 dated 29.06.2024 of Ainthapali Police Station.

5. Taking into consideration the pleadings and documentary evidence the following issues are famed:
103606587.  

1. Whether the O.Ps disclosed the bank accounts detail of the Complainant without the consent?
2. What relief the Complainant is entitled to get?

Issue No.1 Whether the O.Ps disclosed the bank accounts detail of the Complainant without the consent?

From the deposition of the O.P.No.3 Srinibas Patra before Presiding officer. Labour Court, Sambalpur in I.D. Case No. 06/2018 it reveals that account statement of the Complainant relating to S.B. A/C No. 31970723923 S.B.I. Budharaja Branch was filed by O.P.No.3. The O.P.No.3 stated “I had filed statement of Bank accounts of the workman consisting of 31 sheets, each sheet bearing my signatures with seal, which are marked as Ext 7 (31 sheets). It is also a fact that the above sheets (Ext. 7 services) contain the transaction for the period from of 06.10.2014 to 31.10.2017.

I had collected Ext. 7 from the Bank through the staff namely Siddheswar Satpathy, who works in our Accounts and clerical staff Department. I can bring said Siddheswar Satpathy to depose in this case, if Sri. Satpathy will agree for the same. It is true that Sri. Satpathy is one of my Sub-ordinate employees. I do not remember if I had given in written anything to Sri. Satpathy to bring Ext.7 from the Bank.

The O.P.No.3 managed to get the account statement from O.P.No.2 made signature and seal and filed the same before the Labour Court, Sambalpur. As the account is personal account of the Complainant it is obligatory and mandatory for the O.Ps Bank to maintain Secrecy of the account and not disclosed it without the consent of the Complainant. The O.Ps bank failed to submit any consent letter of the Complainant or the authority letter by Virtue of which the O.P.No.3 got the account statement. The leakage of data/documents prove that the customers are not safe in the Bank and it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of O.P.No.1 & 2. The O.Ps have not followed strict protocols for which the O.P.No.3 accessed the account statement and it was misused by third party.

The O.Ps bank submitted that the Complainant might have shared the statement with other wantonly to claim exorbitant compensation through Commission. The O.Ps Bank to patch up his lacuna have taken such stand. Dispute relating to wages are going on between the Complainant and O.P. No.3 and the O.P.No.3 through his agencies collected the document and used against the Complainant.

The issue is answered in favour of the Complainant.

Issue No.2 What relief the Complainant is entitled to get?

From the Supra discussion it is clear that the O.P.No.1 & 2 misused their position, leaked the personal data of customer/Complainant and thereby caused damage/loss to the Complainant. Accordingly, Complainant is entitled for relief. The O.P.No.3 is a proforma O.P.

The following order is passed:

ORDER

The Complaint is allowed on contest against the O.P.No.1 & 2 and dismissed against O.P.No.3. The O.P.NO.1 & 2 are directed to pay compensation of Rs. 1.00 lakh to the Complainant and litigation expenses of Rs. 20,000/- within one month of this order. Incase of non payment the amount will carry 12% interest P.A. from date of filing complaint till realisation.

Order pronounced in the open court on 23^rd day of Sept. 2024.

Supply free copies to the parties.