Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/340/2018

Kumar Nohria & Co. - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Ravi Kant Sharma Adv.

06 Jul 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	340 of 2018
Date  of  Institution	:	18.06.2018
Date   of   Decision	:	06.07.2018

 

 

 

 

Kumar Nohria & Co., SCO # 2470, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh through Proprietor Bimal Kumar Nohria

             …..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  

   ….. Opposite Parties 

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN             PRESIDENT

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER 

                               

 

 

Argued by :- Sh.Ravi Kant Sharma, Adv. for complainant.

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

         Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he being a Chartered Accountant opened a firm for doing his work to earn his livelihood and as such got open a current account with OP Bank. It is averred that in pursuance to the Notification No.2652, dated 8.11.2016 issued by Govt. of India with regard to demonetization, the specific currency notes of Rs.500/- and Rs.1000/- were to be deposited from 10.11.2016 to 31.12.2016 and accordingly, the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.6,42,5000/- in his current account No.1625201002001 with OP Bank at Chandigarh. 

         It is averred that as per Income Tax Rules amended w.e.f. 15.11.2016 (Ann.C-1), instructions have 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.  It is also averred that the complainant had deposited an amount of 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.  But still the OPs have given the information to the third party – Income Tax Department (Ann.C-2) which was neither required nor they were duty bound to do so nor any permission in writing was given by the complainant to OP bank to pass on information to third party.  It is submitted that this is clear case of breach of trust deposed in the OP Bank and is a clear case of deficiency in service. The complainant vide letter dated 3.2.2017 and 13.2.2017 (Ann.C-3 & C-4) requested the OP Bank to revise the information provided to the Income Tax Department, but to no avail.

         It is pleaded that the OP bank has adopted a vindictive attitude towards complainant by passing on and furnishing unsolicited information to the OP Bank after an FIR No.214, dated 12.8.2014 was registered at Police Station Sector 36, Chandigarh by the complainant against the Officials of the OP Bank when they broke open the locker of the complainant in 2014 at the back of the complainant without information and caused a huge loss to the tune of Rs.37 lacs as the Gold & Silver Jewellery along with other articles lying in the locker were misappropriated  (Ann.C-5); the trial is pending before the Magistrate, Chandigarh.  It is submitted that in order to take revenge and to harass and humiliate the complainant before the authorities under Income Tax Act, the unsolicited information was passed on to the Income Tax Department.  It is also submitted that the OPs are deficient in providing service for which they have wrongly passed on the personal information to the third party.  Hence, this complaint has been filed.

 

2]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the complainant on the point of admission of this complaint.

 

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.  

 

4]       In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint is not fit to be admitted for want of any cause of action and therefore, the complaint is hereby dismissed in limine.

         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

6^th July, 2018                                                                                  Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER