Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/214/2018

Kumar Nohria & Co - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager, Canara Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Ravi Kant Sharma,Adv.

23 Oct 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

 

Appeal No.	:	214 of 2018
Date of Institution	:	08.08.2018
Date of Decision	:	23.10.2018

 

Kumar Nohria & Co., SCO #2470, Sector 22C, Chandigarh through proprietor Bimal Kuar Nohria.

…….Appellant/Complainant.

Versus

 

1.  Branch Manager, Canara Bank Branch, SCO- 311-12, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh.

2.  Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Canara Bank, Head Office, 112, JC Road, Banglore, Pin – 560002.

                                                      ...Respondent/Opposite Parties.

 

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection   Act, 1986  against   order dated 06.07.2018 passed by District   Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T. Chandigarh   in Consumer Complaint No.340 of 2018.

 

BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

                MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER.

 

Argued by:

 

Sh. Bimal Kumar Nohria, Proprietor of the appellant Company.

Sh. Nitin Gupta, Advocate for the respondents.

 

PER  RAJESH  K.  ARYA, MEMBER

                   The appellant/complainant has filed this appeal against order dated 06.07.2018 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (in short ‘the Forum’ only),

 

vide which, complaint bearing No.340 of 2018 filed by it (respondent/complainant) was dismissed in limine.

2.              Before the Forum, it was case of the complainant that in pursuance to the notification dated 8.11.2016 issued by Govt. of India with regard to demonetization, the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.6,42,500/- in his current account No.1625201002001 with opposite party no.1 Bank at Chandigarh. As per Income Tax Rules amended w.e.f. 15.11.2016, instructions had been issued to all the Banks to furnish the information to the Income Tax Department in respect of the cash amount deposited, during the period 10.11.2016 to 31.12.2016, in excess of Rs.12,50,000/- or more in one or more current accounts of a person; OR only those deposited aggregating to Rs.2,50,000/- or more in one or more account of a person.  The complainant deposited Rs.6,42,500/- in his current account during the period from 10.11.2016 to 31.12.2016, which was much less than the specified amount of Rs.12,50,000/- and as such, the information of the said deposit could not be furnished to the Income Tax Department.  However, the opposite parties gave information to the third party – Income Tax Department, without obtaining any permission in writing from the complainant, which amounted to clear breach of trust and was a clear case of deficiency in service. It was further stated that the information was passed by the bank in order to take revenge and to harass and humiliate the complainant before the authorities under Income Tax Act as the complainant at an earlier point of time had lodged an FIR against the officials of the said Bank. Vide letters dated 3.2.2017 and 13.2.2017, the complainant requested the opposite parties to revise the information provided to the Income Tax Department, but to no avail. Hence, a consumer complaint was filed before the Forum. 

3.             After going through the documents on record and hearing submission of Counsel for the complainant, the Forum dismissed the complaint in limine.

4.             Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.

5.                          We have heard the Counsel for the parties and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.

6.             Counsel for the appellant/complainant submitted that the Forum overlooked the documents available on record and it is well settled law that no information could be passed on to third party even under the Information Technology Act and as such, the Forum failed to appreciate and comprehend the deficiency in service on the part of the respondents/opposite parties.

7.             On the other hand, Counsel for the respondents/opposite parties submitted that the Forum has rightly passed the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of the appeal filed by the complainant.

8.             The core question that falls for consideration before us is that whether the Forum rightly passed the impugned order. After perusing the impugned order and the documents placed on record of complaint file by the appellant/complainant, the answer to this question is in the affirmative. The Forum in its order has rightly held in Para No.3 as under:-

“3]       Considering the submissions of ld.Counsel for the complainant and after going through the complaint with record, we do not find it fit complaint to be admitted. There is nothing on record to show that the information, so alleged to have been disclosed by the bank, has really been disclosed by the Bank to the Income Tax Department.  Meaning thereby that no source has been disclosed vide which the so called information, alleged to have been disclosed, was disclosed by the bank. The alleged breach of trust on the part of Opposite Party has not been supported by any agreement entered into between the parties restricting the right of the OP Bank to disclose any information.  Thus, there is no cause of action accrued in favour of the complainant to file the present complaint.” 

9.             Before the Forum and this Commission also, the appellant/complainant has miserably failed to establish his case and as such, no deficiency in rendering service is attributable to the respondents/opposite parties. Hence, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity.

10.          For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the Forum is upheld.

11.          Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

12.          The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced

23.10.2018.

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

(PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

 

 

(RAJESH  K. ARYA)

MEMBER

Ad