Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/323/2015

Devender Kumar Goel - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chief Manager, Union Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

12 Jul 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Complaint case No.	:	323 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	28.12.2015
Date of Decision	:	12.07.2016

 

Devendra Kumar Goel (09417839931) #78 Sky Net Enclave, Loahgarh Patiyala Road, Zirakpur (Mohali), Punjab.

 

……Complainant

V e r s u s

1. Chief Manager, Union Bank of India, SCF 62, Sector 30-C, Chandigarh (UT).
2. Chief Manager, Union Bank of India, Sahaspur (Dehradoon-Chd Highway), Dehradoon (Uttrakhand).
3. Chief Grievance Officer, Smt. Hemalatha Rajan, Personal Banking & Operations Department, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 02.
4. Chief Manager, Union Bank of India, D-1, D-2/6, Civil Lines Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar (Uttrakhand).
5. The Chairman cum Managing Director, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 02.

                                                    .... Opposite Parties

BEFORE:         MR. DEV RAJ, PRESIDING MEMBER.

                        MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

Argued by:      

Sh.  Devendra Kumar Goel, complainant in person.

Sh. Kamal Satija, Advocate for the Opposite Parties.

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

               The facts, in brief, are that the complainant while working in Sahaspur (Dehradoon), in the year 2007-2008, opened a saving bank account bearing No.342506650092522 with Opposite Party No.2 Bank, which is continued till date and he also opened another saving bank account bearing No.620302010002005 in the year 2011 with Opposite Party No.1 Bank, Sector 30, Chandigarh. It was stated that the complainant having two savings bank accounts in Union Bank of India also availed the loan facilities. It was further stated that the complainant worked in Rudrapur (Uttrakhand) as Plant Head in one MNC since 2009 to December, 2012 and now shifted to Ghaziabad in the same Company and never visited/contacted anyone at Civil Lines Branch of Union Bank of India, Rudrapur (Opposite Party No.4). It was further stated that the complainant received salary in Axis Bank and there is also joint account in HDFC Bank, which is regularly operated and even from Rudrapur, through ATM.  It was further stated that Opposite Party No.4 branch employee having code No.575132 issued the bank statements of both the accounts of the complainant alongwith depositary slip, unauthorisedly and illegally supplied copies of the aforesaid account to the third party, without proper authorization to bank branch and continued to give till 2014.

2.           It was further stated that the bank statements of both the accounts of the complainant alongwith depository slip had been misused by the third party and produced in the Civil Court at Delhi in a private dispute pending against him. The complainant made a complaint in the year 2012-2013, to Bank branch of Sector 30-C, Chandigarh but no action was taken by the said branch. It was further stated that the bank statements of both the accounts from 01.04.2012 to 30.04.2012 were given on 24.07.2012, statements from 27.04.2013 to 16.11.2013, 27.01.2014 to 15.04.2014 have been given later on, which was printed on bank stationery, misused by the third party, in filing the tax evasion petition against the complainant and his family members/relatives for allegation of misappropriate assets in Income Tax Department at Patiala for starting of income tax proceedings for scrutiny case by DDIT/ADIT/DGIT (investigation Punjab) and also by the Assessing Officers Gzb since February, 2013 onwards and still continued. It was further stated that no information was given by the Income Tax Department under RTI that who has filed the complaint and similarly the bank is not replying to whom they had handed over the information and for what purpose ? It was further stated that the reply was received from the bank, in which, the bank is confirming that they have maintained the secrecy but not adopted the procedure of SBOP for giving the statements. Due to unauthorized act of Opposite Party No.4, the complainant lost the legal case in the Civil Court and in Criminal Court with defamation of goodwill for recovery of amount of Rs.22 lacs, as the person, who collected the statement from the bank submitted to the Company management and proved that the complainant accepted the bribe from him as contractor of manpower supplier.  It was further stated that the person, who collected statements and depository slip from Opposite Party No.4 have enough evidence against the complainant that he received bribe/asking double payments, as directly, deposited by him in the bank of Opposite Party No.4, whereas, the complainant has given amount for depositing on good faith. It was further stated that as per guidelines of Reserve Bank of India, no information of a customer could be supplied to any third party, barring some exceptional circumstances, which did not exist here.

3.           It was further stated that the Rudrapur branch of the Bank was extremely negligent in protecting his confidential information with regard to the transaction statement of the complainant, causing him immense prejudice, mental stress, trauma & distress and increasing his financial liability. It was further stated that the Chandigarh and Sahaspur branches of the Bank are also a necessary party because they must take steps to protect the data of the complainant’s accounts, otherwise in CBS system, it is easily possible to get data at any remote computer and to hand over the same to third person. It was further stated that there is a prescribed standard form for getting the bank statement from the concerned branch with subsequent  payment of charges/fees debited to account holder account, but in this case, no fees had been debited. It was further stated that the bank statement and depository slip were given to the third party, which are totally confidential documents, even without seeing that account is not of the issuing branch. It was further stated that the person, who is responsible for such leakage, is therefore primarily responsible, for the loss and damage suffered by the complainant. It was further stated that the complainant made a complaint in writing with copies of relevant bank statements, depository slip to the officers of the bank with a request to investigate the matter, but no satisfactory reply was received. It was further stated that inspite of request letters/telephonic calls in the matter, neither bank deputed staff for Grievance Redressal investigated the matter nor disclosed the name of the person/reason of doing so. Ultimately, the complainant sent notice for compensation to the Opposite Parties, but to no avail. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts, on the part of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the ‘Act’ only), was filed.

4.           The Opposite Parties, in their joint written version, stated that this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, as no part of cause of action accrued at Chandigarh. It was denied that Annexure -2 from page No.12 to 17 of the complaint allegedly issued by an officer posted with Opposite Party No.4 because the documents at page No.12 and 13 do not show that the same have been issued by an officer posted with Opposite Party No.4. It was further stated that the said document is a forged and fabricated one, as the statement of account actually does not bear any rubber stamp and the complainant tried to overlap some other document containing the rubber stamp upon this document to manufacture evidence in order to prove that it was issued by the branch of replying Opposite Parties. It was further stated that the documents at page No.14 and 15 of the complaint are photocopies of passbook of the complainant being maintained by him with Opposite Party No.1 and the said passbook is under the exclusive possession of the account holder i.e. the complainant himself and the said passbook can come in possession of any other person only when the complainant handed over the same to such person. It was further stated that the document at page No.16 of the complaint is a forged and fabricated document, as the same at the bottom right corner suggests that the said page is page No.1 of the account statement, whereas, from a bare perusal of the said document, it is clear that it is not page No.1 but the last page of the statement of account and further it is not clear as to whom the account belongs to. It was further stated that the complainant tried to overlap two documents one over the other to try and proclaim that page No.16 was issued by an officer posted with Opposite Party No.4. It was further stated that if there was any ill will on the part of the said officer, he would have made sure that his employee code is not available in any such document, as alleged to have been issued by him to a third party. It was further stated that at page No.17 of the complaint are copies of demand drafts, however, it is not clear as to how the said document relates to the complainant. It was further stated that the complaint being a result of forgery and fabrication cannot be dealt with by this Commission by way of summary procedure, as disputed questions of fact are involved, which are required to be proved by the parties by leading cogent evidence before a competent Civil Court.

5.           It was further stated that the complainant be put to strict proof that he never visited the office of Opposite Party No.4, as it is the case of the complainant that the statement of his account was allegedly issued unauthorisedly by an official posted with Opposite Party No.4 on 24.07.2012 and on the said date, admittedly the complainant was working as Plant Head in an MNC at Rudrapur from the year 2009 till December, 2012. It was further stated that the complainant, out of frustration of loosing a civil case at the hands of some other third party, is trying to put the burden upon the replying Opposite Parties in a totally desperate manner. It was further stated that the complainant did not make any complaint to Opposite Party No.1 in the year 2012-2013. The averments regarding filing of tax evasion petition etc. before the Income Tax Authorities were denied, as the same did not pertain to the replying Opposite Parties. It was further stated that as a general practice, the statement of account of a customer is issued by the branch on the oral request of the customer, as well provided to the customer himself present in the branch to make such a request, as the officials of the branch are well conversant and known to their customers and there is absolutely no mandatory requirement of obtaining an application in writing from the customer in this regard. Moreover, fee/charges, if any, leviable for issuance of such statements are waived of at the discretion of the Branch Manager, as a matter of goodwill.  It was further stated that the replying Opposite Parties have not provided any document of the complainant to any third party and the matter, in question, was got thoroughly investigated by the Bank, as is reflected from Annexure 4, annexed with the complaint. It was denied that Opposite Party No.4 has been negligent in protecting the confidential information of the customer. It was further stated that the data pertaining to all the customers of the replying Opposite Parties is maintained online by way of CBS (Core Banking Solutions) and the same is available through the multi-layered security systems on the official server of the replying Opposite Parties and the data could be accessed only by an authorized officer having valid user name and password issued to him by the respondent Bank pan-India and no other authorized person could access the same.  It was further stated that a perusal of Annexure 9 i.e. the alleged police complaint would show that the same is an unsigned document probably manufactured by the complainant at his residence to help him in his evil designs. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties, nor they  indulged into unfair trade practice.

6.           The complainant, filed rejoinder to the written statement of the Opposite Parties, wherein he reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and refuted those, contained in the written version of the Opposite Parties. 

7.           The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

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

9.           The first question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, this Commission has got territorial Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint, or not. Counsel for the Opposite Parties stated that no part of cause of action accrued at Chandigarh within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission, as such,  this Commission has no territorial Jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint.

              According to Section 17 of the Act, a consumer complaint could be filed by the complainant(s), before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, within the territorial Jurisdiction whereof, a part of cause of action arose to them. After going through the record, it is evident that the complainant is having two savings bank accounts, one with Union Bank of India, Sector 30-C, Chandigarh (Opposite Party No.1) and other account is with Sahaspur (Dehradoon) branch of Union Bank of India. It is the admitted fact that savings bank account is in Chandigarh Branch of Union Bank of India. Even according to the complainant, the Bank is having branch as well as regional office in Chandigarh.  Moreover, the dispute, in the present case, is also related to Chandigarh branch of the Bank. Since a part of cause of action, arose to the complainant, at Chandigarh, this Commission has got territorial Jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint.  The objection taken by Counsel for the Opposite Parties, in this regard, therefore, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

10.          Another objection was raised by the Counsel for the Opposite Parties that the consumer complaint is not maintainable, and only a Civil Court can decide the case because the disputed questions of facts are involved in this case. After going through the record, we are of the view that there are no complicated questions of facts involved in this case because the complainant simply opened his two savings accounts, one with Chandigarh Branch and another with Sahaspur Branch of Union Bank of India. The dispute is that Rudrapur Branch of Union Bank of India wrongly and illegally issued the statement of accounts of the complainant’s account to the third party. So, we are of the view that this Commission is competent to decide the case. In this view of the matter, the objection taken by Counsel for the Opposite Parties, in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

11.          The another question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, there was any fault on the part of the Opposite Parties for leaking the information of the complainant’s account. It is, undoubtedly, true that the complainant while working in Sahaspur (Dehradoon), in the year 2007-2008, opened a savings bank account bearing No.342506650092522 with Opposite Party No.2 Bank and he also opened another savings bank account bearing No.620302010002005, in the year 2011, with Opposite Party No.1 i.e. Union Bank of India, Sector 30-C, Chandigarh. According to the complainant, the branch employee having code No.575132 of Opposite Party No.4 issued the bank statements of both the accounts of the complainant alongwith depositary slip, unauthorisedly and illegally to the third party, without proper authorization by bank branch. The bank statements of both the accounts of the complainant alongwith depository slip had been misused by the third party and produced in the Civil Court at Delhi in a private dispute pending against him. Therefore, the complainant made a complaint in this regard to Opposite Party No.1 but no action was taken. The complainant further alleged that the bank statements of both the accounts from 01.04.2012 to 30.04.2012 given on 24.07.2012, statements from 27.04.2013 to 16.11.2013, 27.01.2014 to 15.04.2014 have been given later on, which was printed on bank stationery, misused by the third party, for filing the tax evasion petition against the complainant and his family members/relatives for allegation of misappropriate assets in Income Tax Department at Patiala for starting income tax proceedings for scrutiny case by DDIT/ADIT/DGIT (investigation Punjab) and also by the Assessing Officers Gzb since February, 2013 onwards and still continued. When the complainant sought information under RTI from the Income Tax Department that who is filing the complaint and similarly the bank is not replying to whom they handed over the information and for what purpose. Due to unauthorized act of Opposite Party No.4, the complainant lost the legal case in the Civil Court and in Criminal Court with defamation of goodwill for recovery of amount of Rs.22 lacs.

12.          After going through the record of the case and evidence produced by the complainant, we are of the opinion that there is deficiency in service and indulgence into unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party No.4 only i.e. Chief Manager, Union Bank of India, D-1/D-2/6, Civil Lines Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar (Uttrakhand) and no fault is found on the part of other branches of the Bank i.e. Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 & 5. It is clearly proved that the complainant is having two accounts with Union Bank of India, one at Chandigarh branch and another at Sahaspur Branch. Even the complainant has attached statement of account of Union Bank of India, Sector 30-C, Chandigarh (at page No.13 of the file). A bare perusal of the said documents clearly show that the same were issued by Rudrapur Branch of Union Bank of India because the stamp of the said branch and also the employee having code No.575132 also clearly shown on the said documents. So, it is clearly proved that the statement of accounts alongwith depository slips were generated by Rudrapur Branch of Union Bank of India and handed over to the third party. The said branch disobeyed the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India as well as by Indian Banking Association that prescribe that no information of a customer can be supplied to any third party, barring some exceptional circumstances, which did not exist here. The Rudrapur Branch was extremely negligent in protecting his confidential information with regard to transaction statement of the complainant’s accounts. It is not understandable that why account statements of Chandigarh Branch has been given in Rudrapur. Moreover, the plea of the Opposite Parties in their written statement that as a general practice, the statement of account of a customer issued by the branch on the oral request of the customer, as well provided the customer himself present in the branch to make such a request, as the officials of the branch are well conversant and known to their customers and there is absolutely no mandatory requirement of obtaining an application in writing from the customer in this regard, has no value at all because the  complainant in his rejoinder has specifically stated that the guidelines have been issued by the Reserve Bank of India, in which, there is a specimen form which is mandatory to be filled by the account holder to get the statement and subsequently debiting of charges, as per Annexure 6, annexed with the complaint. The plea of the Opposite Parties that the bank employees are well conversant and known to their customers, has no value, at all, because it is not possible that the Bank employees are known/recognized by all the customers of the Bank. The complainant in his rejoinder has clearly stated that even the bank employees have not recognized his wife, who is joint account holder in the bank branch. According to the Opposite Parties, they never provided any document of the complainant to any third party and the matter, in question, was got thoroughly investigated by the Bank, as is reflected from Annexure 4, annexed with the complaint. The relevant portion of the letter dated 16.12.2015 (Annexure 4)  reads thus :-

• “Branch maintains the secrecy of customer data/ account details and all officers maintain customer’s confidentiality.
• As per the practice, statement of accounts/ any other relevant papers are provided to the account holder only as per the request of the customer.
• On inquiring with the concerned official, the officer has confirmed that he has not parted with the statement of accounts/receipt voucher of your account to any third party.”

 

The complainant has also placed on record copy of email (Annexure 5), which reads thus :-

“This has reference to complaint filed by Sh. Devendra Kumar Goel. In this matter, we wish to submit as under :-

• Matter pertains to July 2012, i.e. more than 3 years old. None of the employees of that time is at present posted at our branch.
• Branch has discussed the issue with Sh. Sujeet Pangtey whose employee code 575132 has been mentioned by the complainant. As the matter of providing bank statement of account is quiet general in nature, Mr. Sujeet Pangtey do not remember exactly whom the statement under question had been given to. It has been informed by Mr. Sujeet Pangtey that statement of said account must not have been given by him to any third party.
• As far as deposit slip is concerned, Mr. Sujeet Pangtey has out rightly denied of providing the same to anyone.”

13.          In view of the afore-extracted documents, it is clear that the Bank has investigated the matter but we do not rely upon the same because Sh. Sujeet Pangtey, whose employee code 575132, firstly stated that he does not remember exactly whom the statement under question had been given to and, thereafter, he (Mr. Sujeet Pangtey) said that statement of said account must not have been given by him to any third party. So, it is clearly proved that the Rudrapur branch of the Union Bank of India is responsible for not following the direction of Reserve Bank of India/Head Office, as per the standard procedure of operation, bank must receive filled form from customer, and only after verification of signatures, available with CBS System, can give the statements after charging the nominated fees but in the present case, no fees has been charged. Due to the fault of the employee of Opposite Party No.4, the complainant has suffered a lot because he lost his case in the Civil Court. The tax evasion petition against the complainant and his family members/relatives for allegation of misappropriate assets in Income Tax Department at Patiala for starting of income tax proceedings and also by the Assessing Officers Gzb since February, 2013 onwards and still continued. Moreover, the complainant is running from pillar to post for his grievances because he sought information under RTI from the Income Tax Department that who has filed the complaint and similarly the bank had not replied to whom they handed over the information and for what purpose. So, it is clearly proved that there is deficiency in service and indulgence into unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party No.4. The complainant, thus, underwent a lot of mental agony and harassment, on account of the acts of omission and commission of Opposite Party No.4. Compensation to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- if granted, shall be reasonable, adequate and fair. The complainant, is, thus, held entitled to compensation, in the sum of Rs.4,00,000/-.

14.          Since we are allowing the sufficient compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant,  he is, therefore, not entitled to claim any other relief, as prayed in para No.20 of the complaint.

15.          The complaint qua Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 & 5 stands dismissed.

16.          No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties.

17.          For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted, with costs. Opposite Party No.4 is directed, as under:-

1. To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.4,00,000/- for causing mental agony and harassment, to the complainant, within 45 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
2. To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant.
3. To deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission, as a penalty for indulging into unfair trade practice, within 45 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
4. In case, the payment of amount, mentioned in Clauses (i), is not made, within the stipulated period, then Opposite Party No.4 shall be liable to pay the compensation amount mentioned in Clause (i) with simple interest @12%, , from the date of filing the complaint, till realization, besides payment of litigation costs. In case, Opposite Party No.4 fails to deposit the amount in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission, then it shall be liable to deposit the aforesaid amount with interest @12% p.a. from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, till its realization.

 

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

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

Pronounced.

July 12, 2016.                                                                                                                                        Sd/-

 [DEV RAJ]

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

Sd/-

 (PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

rb