Per Shri Pradeep G Kadu, Hon’ble President

       This is a consumer complaint filed by the abovenamed Complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.According to Complainant, the brief facts of the present complaintare as follows:

1. Complainant Mr Rajesh Kamdar has submitted before the Commission in his complaint that he was the account holder in Dena Bank. This bank amalgamated with Bank of Baroda i.e, the Opposite Party in the present complaint.However, Bank of Baroda didn’t disclose transferred bank account details to him.  Hence, he prayed that Bank of Baroda be directed to disclose all account details with antecedents.
2. The present complaint was admitted by this Commission on 27^th December, 2021 and accordinglynotices were issued to the Opposite Party i.e, Bank of Baroda.  In spite of sufficient opportunities provided to the Opposite Party, nobody attended before this Commission. Relying on these facts,this Commission passed order to proceed the matter ex-parte against Opposite Party.
3. On 20^th December, 2022, the Complainant submitted xerox copy of pass book.  On the same date, Mrs Gomati,representative of Advocate Ajay Bamne on behalf of Opposite Party appeared before this Commission and filed his vakalatnama.  The Opposite Party agreed to supply necessary information to Complainant on this date.
4. The Complainant on 30 may 2023 filed one application in the office of Registrar of this office for disposal of complaint.

Observation of Facts and Conclusions.

5. We have perused all the records available in the file and made following observations in the said case after going through the available records.

1. The said complaint is about deficiency of service against the Opposite Party-Bank of Baroda.  It is alleged by the Complainant that he didn’t get the details of his bank accounts after his earlier bank got amalgamated in the new entity i.e, Bank of Baroda the Opposite Party herein.
2. The matter was proceeded against the Opposite Party-Bank of Baroda due to their absence in the present complaint despite duly served.  However, in one of the proceedings, they agreed to supply necessary information to the Complainant.
3. After perusal of various submissions, it is noticed that Opposite Party-Bank of Baroda as agreed, before the Commission on 20^th December, 2022 supplied the  necessary information to the Complainant vide their letter dated 2^nd January, 2023.
4. The Complainant submitted one application on 30^th May, 2023, in which he admits that he got details of account. However, in the same letter he made some comments such as:-

1. Respondent abused the process of court,
2. U/s 4 of Information Technology Act,  which conclusively proved  all own accounts and linked accounts with respondent u/s 3 read with section 114 of evidence act.
3. Also vide oral submission made by me at final hearing on 11th October 2022 I made following further submission:-

‘In internet banking when I log into respondent's website it, checks based on my password, what types and how many accounts of particular type I am having from database index called METADATA.This index like in book gives all details of accounts I am having with respondent.So when I logged into internet banking of respondent's website it finds not only many own and linked accounts which I have with them but also how many of own and linked account I have with them.In view of this fact judjement be pronounced against respondent and also for action of contempt of court by respondent’.

5. On perusal of the contents of this letter we didn’t find any substance in the said submission.  In fact, the said submission is inconsistent and brings no conclusion at the end of the letter. We failed to understand what exactly the Complainant wish to submit before this Commission.
6. Required information of bank account details of Mr Kamdar is available on record which shows that Bank of Baroda holds bank account of Complainant Mr.Rajesh Kamdar in M.G.Road,Mulund West Branchand bank Account No.99630100002929.
7. No other deficiency could be made out from the complaint of Mr Kamdar.

6. Based on above observations and on perusal of the record available and produced by the parties herein before this Commission in the present case and after going through all the facts in the present case carefully, we framed the following points to decide the present consumer complaint.

7. Hence, considering the detailed reasons for the issues framed in this case as above by us, it can be concluded in the present casethat the Complainant fails to bring all facts related to the incident on record, which can alter our opinion.  The only requirement placed by Complainant about supply of information of bank account is already complied by Opposite Party vide their letter dated 2^nd January, 2023.
8. Hence, we held that there is no deficiency of service in the said matter on the part of the Opposite Party-Bank of Baroda and therefore, the present consumer complaint deserves to be dismissed in the light of above observations.  Thus, we pass the following order.

ORDER

1. Consumer Complaint No.CC/222/2021standsdismissed.
2. No order at cost.
3. The copy of the order be sent to both parties free of cost.